data_type stringclasses 2 values | dog_whistle stringlengths 2 26 | dog_whistle_root stringlengths 2 98 ⌀ | ingroup stringclasses 17 values | content stringlengths 2 83.3k | date stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | speaker stringlengths 4 62 ⌀ | chamber stringclasses 2 values | reference stringlengths 24 31 ⌀ | community stringclasses 11 values | __index_level_0__ int64 0 35.6k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgH3921-2 | null | 1,000 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 1067) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7617) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgH3962-3 | null | 1,001 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 1067) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7617) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgH3963-3 | null | 1,002 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 7027) making additional supplemental appropriations for disaster relief requirements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgH3964 | null | 1,003 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 7327) making additional supplemental appropriations for disaster relief requirements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgH3966 | null | 1,004 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, when the Senate passed the CARES Act back in March, we were trying to prepare the Nation for economic paralysis and the medical battle of the century at the very same time. Hospitals, healthcare providers, small businesses, and working families needed help fast, and the Senate stepped up in historic fashion. For months, our legislation has helped cushion the pain of this crisis from coast to coast, but our Nation is not finished with this fight. More Americans are dying every day. Millions and millions are unemployed. And the institutions of American life cannot stay totally shut down until our race for a vaccine hits the finish line. Our Nation needs to smartly and safely reopen while keeping up the medical battle. We need to get kids safely back to school and adults safely back to work without losing ground in the healthcare fight. The coronavirus does not care that we are divided. The coronavirus will not care if Washington Democrats decide it suits their partisan goals to let relief run dry. The American people are hurting, and Congress should have their backs. On Monday, I laid down a marker to shape the bipartisan conversations that need to happen now--not a loony, ideological fantasy like the House Democrats bill from a few months ago, which would have cut taxes for rich people, raised taxes on small business, and provided no additional round for the Paycheck Protection Program. No, serious talks actually require a serious starting point. That is why we wrote a serious bill containing largely bipartisan policies. It has another round of cash for households--more than $3,000 for an eligible family of four, with even more support for adult dependents; another round of additional Federal unemployment benefits assistance, which would otherwise simply expire; and another targeted round of the Paycheck Protection Program to prevent even more layoffs and keep paychecks coming to American workers. It has powerful new incentives to jump-start rehiring, bring down unemployment, and create safe workplaces for workers and customers. It has more support for hospitals and health providers; more support for testing, PPE, and diagnostics; and more resources for the sprint toward a vaccine. It has historic support for schools to reopen--a higher dollar amount than House Democrats managed to propose in their bill, which costs three times as much as ours. And--uniting all three pillars of kids, jobs, and healthcare--we have legal protection for medical workers, schools, nonprofits, and businesses so that well-connected trial lawyers can't get even richer off of stopping the recovery in its tracks. This is a more-than-fair, more-than-bipartisan framework for Democrats to engage with. The only reason I can see that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader would sabotage negotiations is if, as some concluded when they killed police reform in June, they actually think bipartisan progress for the country would hurt their own political chances. That is why I said a few days ago that we would quickly learn whether the American people would be getting the responsible Democratic Party from March or the cynical, obstructionist Democratic Party from June that blocked police reform. So let's review the early going. Almost the instant we put out this proposal--which would send thousands of dollars in cash to families and even more cash to unemployed people--the Democratic leader proclaimed that ``those Republican, hard-right money people . . . don't want the Federal Government to help anybody.'' A trillion dollar proposal for kids, jobs, and healthcare just proves Republicans don't want to help anyone. Yesterday, after meeting with the administration, the Speaker of the House said this ``isn't a negotiation.' So here we go again. It is the script from police reform all over again. We have had weeks of talk from Democrats about the urgency of the issue, weeks of Democrats thundering that people will be hurt if we don't act. But then, when it is time to actually make a law, Democrats would rather keep political issues alive than find a bipartisan way to resolve them. Take the issue of additional Federal unemployment insurance. For weeks now, it has been clear to a majority of Americans that we should not pay people more to stay home than we pay people who continue working. Should we have generous unemployment insurance in this crisis? Of course. Republicans want to continue the Federal supplement at eight times the level that Democrats themselves put in place during the last recession. But, obviously, we should not be taxing the essential workers who have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Let me say that again. We should not be taxing the essential workers who have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Until about 5 minutes ago, this was not a controversial opinion. Democrats shared it with us. The House Democrat majority leader said yesterday: ``That's an argument that . . . has some validity to it. . . . It's not $600 or bust.'' A few days earlier, our Democratic colleague Senator Coons said he thought we would be ``finding some path forward'' with a different dollar figure. The day before yesterday, our colleague Senator Cardin said: ``What is the right number? Well, we certainly understand we don't want someone to have higher benefits than what someone can make working.'' At the State level, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut agrees. This is what he said: ``I think sometimes it discourages work. . . . I would put off this extra $600 true-up they're talking about. . . . I don't think we need that.'' That is the Democratic Governor of Connecticut. Like I said, it is not controversial. The Congressional Budget Office says that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive more to stay home than they made on the job. Let me say that one more time. The Congressional Budget Office says that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive more to stay home than they made on the job. We all know that is not fair, and it is not workable in a reopening job market. We have already heard from small business owners who had trouble reopening because it would be financially irrational for their employees to come back. This is why Republicans propose to continue providing Federal aid--continue providing hundreds of dollars per week--but do it in a more targeted way while providing even more incentives for rehiring. But now the Speaker of the House apparently signals she rejects this bipartisan consensus and will not let a package go forward unless we continue paying people more not to work. That is apparently the Speaker's position--that she will not let a package go forward unless we continue paying people more not to work. That is what Speaker Pelosi apparently signaled yesterday: No money for schools, no money for households, no second round of the PPP, no more money for hospitals or testing, nothing at all unless we continue to pay people more not to work. If the Democrats don't get to continue taxing essential workers to pay other people more to stay home, then nobody gets a dime. To put it gently, that is a completely unhinged position. Sixty-two percent of Americans say that paying people extra to remain unemployed creates the wrong incentive. A Democratic Governor says he doesn't want that continuing. Her own deputy, the House Democratic majority leader, said yesterday that there should be room to negotiate. But Speaker Pelosi is literally moving the goalposts so fast that even Democrats can't keep up, and now she apparently feels that any rescue package will have to be to the political left of her own Democratic majority leader, to the political left of the Democratic Governor of Connecticut or she will not even consider it. She will just refuse to legislate until the election and wish the American families good luck in dealing with the pandemic. These are not the positions of people who are putting the common good above politics. These are not the positions of people who actually want to reach an agreement to save Federal unemployment insurance from completely expiring. The American people deserve better than this. The American people cannot afford for Democrats in Congress to have decided in June that they are finished legislating until November--not during a crisis like this. The country needs help. The country needs action. If Democratic leaders decide they will not negotiate, they will answer to the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4553-6 | null | 1,005 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, when the Senate passed the CARES Act back in March, we were trying to prepare the Nation for economic paralysis and the medical battle of the century at the very same time. Hospitals, healthcare providers, small businesses, and working families needed help fast, and the Senate stepped up in historic fashion. For months, our legislation has helped cushion the pain of this crisis from coast to coast, but our Nation is not finished with this fight. More Americans are dying every day. Millions and millions are unemployed. And the institutions of American life cannot stay totally shut down until our race for a vaccine hits the finish line. Our Nation needs to smartly and safely reopen while keeping up the medical battle. We need to get kids safely back to school and adults safely back to work without losing ground in the healthcare fight. The coronavirus does not care that we are divided. The coronavirus will not care if Washington Democrats decide it suits their partisan goals to let relief run dry. The American people are hurting, and Congress should have their backs. On Monday, I laid down a marker to shape the bipartisan conversations that need to happen now--not a loony, ideological fantasy like the House Democrats bill from a few months ago, which would have cut taxes for rich people, raised taxes on small business, and provided no additional round for the Paycheck Protection Program. No, serious talks actually require a serious starting point. That is why we wrote a serious bill containing largely bipartisan policies. It has another round of cash for households--more than $3,000 for an eligible family of four, with even more support for adult dependents; another round of additional Federal unemployment benefits assistance, which would otherwise simply expire; and another targeted round of the Paycheck Protection Program to prevent even more layoffs and keep paychecks coming to American workers. It has powerful new incentives to jump-start rehiring, bring down unemployment, and create safe workplaces for workers and customers. It has more support for hospitals and health providers; more support for testing, PPE, and diagnostics; and more resources for the sprint toward a vaccine. It has historic support for schools to reopen--a higher dollar amount than House Democrats managed to propose in their bill, which costs three times as much as ours. And--uniting all three pillars of kids, jobs, and healthcare--we have legal protection for medical workers, schools, nonprofits, and businesses so that well-connected trial lawyers can't get even richer off of stopping the recovery in its tracks. This is a more-than-fair, more-than-bipartisan framework for Democrats to engage with. The only reason I can see that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader would sabotage negotiations is if, as some concluded when they killed police reform in June, they actually think bipartisan progress for the country would hurt their own political chances. That is why I said a few days ago that we would quickly learn whether the American people would be getting the responsible Democratic Party from March or the cynical, obstructionist Democratic Party from June that blocked police reform. So let's review the early going. Almost the instant we put out this proposal--which would send thousands of dollars in cash to families and even more cash to unemployed people--the Democratic leader proclaimed that ``those Republican, hard-right money people . . . don't want the Federal Government to help anybody.'' A trillion dollar proposal for kids, jobs, and healthcare just proves Republicans don't want to help anyone. Yesterday, after meeting with the administration, the Speaker of the House said this ``isn't a negotiation.' So here we go again. It is the script from police reform all over again. We have had weeks of talk from Democrats about the urgency of the issue, weeks of Democrats thundering that people will be hurt if we don't act. But then, when it is time to actually make a law, Democrats would rather keep political issues alive than find a bipartisan way to resolve them. Take the issue of additional Federal unemployment insurance. For weeks now, it has been clear to a majority of Americans that we should not pay people more to stay home than we pay people who continue working. Should we have generous unemployment insurance in this crisis? Of course. Republicans want to continue the Federal supplement at eight times the level that Democrats themselves put in place during the last recession. But, obviously, we should not be taxing the essential workers who have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Let me say that again. We should not be taxing the essential workers who have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Until about 5 minutes ago, this was not a controversial opinion. Democrats shared it with us. The House Democrat majority leader said yesterday: ``That's an argument that . . . has some validity to it. . . . It's not $600 or bust.'' A few days earlier, our Democratic colleague Senator Coons said he thought we would be ``finding some path forward'' with a different dollar figure. The day before yesterday, our colleague Senator Cardin said: ``What is the right number? Well, we certainly understand we don't want someone to have higher benefits than what someone can make working.'' At the State level, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut agrees. This is what he said: ``I think sometimes it discourages work. . . . I would put off this extra $600 true-up they're talking about. . . . I don't think we need that.'' That is the Democratic Governor of Connecticut. Like I said, it is not controversial. The Congressional Budget Office says that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive more to stay home than they made on the job. Let me say that one more time. The Congressional Budget Office says that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive more to stay home than they made on the job. We all know that is not fair, and it is not workable in a reopening job market. We have already heard from small business owners who had trouble reopening because it would be financially irrational for their employees to come back. This is why Republicans propose to continue providing Federal aid--continue providing hundreds of dollars per week--but do it in a more targeted way while providing even more incentives for rehiring. But now the Speaker of the House apparently signals she rejects this bipartisan consensus and will not let a package go forward unless we continue paying people more not to work. That is apparently the Speaker's position--that she will not let a package go forward unless we continue paying people more not to work. That is what Speaker Pelosi apparently signaled yesterday: No money for schools, no money for households, no second round of the PPP, no more money for hospitals or testing, nothing at all unless we continue to pay people more not to work. If the Democrats don't get to continue taxing essential workers to pay other people more to stay home, then nobody gets a dime. To put it gently, that is a completely unhinged position. Sixty-two percent of Americans say that paying people extra to remain unemployed creates the wrong incentive. A Democratic Governor says he doesn't want that continuing. Her own deputy, the House Democratic majority leader, said yesterday that there should be room to negotiate. But Speaker Pelosi is literally moving the goalposts so fast that even Democrats can't keep up, and now she apparently feels that any rescue package will have to be to the political left of her own Democratic majority leader, to the political left of the Democratic Governor of Connecticut or she will not even consider it. She will just refuse to legislate until the election and wish the American families good luck in dealing with the pandemic. These are not the positions of people who are putting the common good above politics. These are not the positions of people who actually want to reach an agreement to save Federal unemployment insurance from completely expiring. The American people deserve better than this. The American people cannot afford for Democrats in Congress to have decided in June that they are finished legislating until November--not during a crisis like this. The country needs help. The country needs action. If Democratic leaders decide they will not negotiate, they will answer to the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4553-6 | null | 1,006 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, when the Senate passed the CARES Act back in March, we were trying to prepare the Nation for economic paralysis and the medical battle of the century at the very same time. Hospitals, healthcare providers, small businesses, and working families needed help fast, and the Senate stepped up in historic fashion. For months, our legislation has helped cushion the pain of this crisis from coast to coast, but our Nation is not finished with this fight. More Americans are dying every day. Millions and millions are unemployed. And the institutions of American life cannot stay totally shut down until our race for a vaccine hits the finish line. Our Nation needs to smartly and safely reopen while keeping up the medical battle. We need to get kids safely back to school and adults safely back to work without losing ground in the healthcare fight. The coronavirus does not care that we are divided. The coronavirus will not care if Washington Democrats decide it suits their partisan goals to let relief run dry. The American people are hurting, and Congress should have their backs. On Monday, I laid down a marker to shape the bipartisan conversations that need to happen now--not a loony, ideological fantasy like the House Democrats bill from a few months ago, which would have cut taxes for rich people, raised taxes on small business, and provided no additional round for the Paycheck Protection Program. No, serious talks actually require a serious starting point. That is why we wrote a serious bill containing largely bipartisan policies. It has another round of cash for households--more than $3,000 for an eligible family of four, with even more support for adult dependents; another round of additional Federal unemployment benefits assistance, which would otherwise simply expire; and another targeted round of the Paycheck Protection Program to prevent even more layoffs and keep paychecks coming to American workers. It has powerful new incentives to jump-start rehiring, bring down unemployment, and create safe workplaces for workers and customers. It has more support for hospitals and health providers; more support for testing, PPE, and diagnostics; and more resources for the sprint toward a vaccine. It has historic support for schools to reopen--a higher dollar amount than House Democrats managed to propose in their bill, which costs three times as much as ours. And--uniting all three pillars of kids, jobs, and healthcare--we have legal protection for medical workers, schools, nonprofits, and businesses so that well-connected trial lawyers can't get even richer off of stopping the recovery in its tracks. This is a more-than-fair, more-than-bipartisan framework for Democrats to engage with. The only reason I can see that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader would sabotage negotiations is if, as some concluded when they killed police reform in June, they actually think bipartisan progress for the country would hurt their own political chances. That is why I said a few days ago that we would quickly learn whether the American people would be getting the responsible Democratic Party from March or the cynical, obstructionist Democratic Party from June that blocked police reform. So let's review the early going. Almost the instant we put out this proposal--which would send thousands of dollars in cash to families and even more cash to unemployed people--the Democratic leader proclaimed that ``those Republican, hard-right money people . . . don't want the Federal Government to help anybody.'' A trillion dollar proposal for kids, jobs, and healthcare just proves Republicans don't want to help anyone. Yesterday, after meeting with the administration, the Speaker of the House said this ``isn't a negotiation.' So here we go again. It is the script from police reform all over again. We have had weeks of talk from Democrats about the urgency of the issue, weeks of Democrats thundering that people will be hurt if we don't act. But then, when it is time to actually make a law, Democrats would rather keep political issues alive than find a bipartisan way to resolve them. Take the issue of additional Federal unemployment insurance. For weeks now, it has been clear to a majority of Americans that we should not pay people more to stay home than we pay people who continue working. Should we have generous unemployment insurance in this crisis? Of course. Republicans want to continue the Federal supplement at eight times the level that Democrats themselves put in place during the last recession. But, obviously, we should not be taxing the essential workers who have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Let me say that again. We should not be taxing the essential workers who have kept working so the government can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Until about 5 minutes ago, this was not a controversial opinion. Democrats shared it with us. The House Democrat majority leader said yesterday: ``That's an argument that . . . has some validity to it. . . . It's not $600 or bust.'' A few days earlier, our Democratic colleague Senator Coons said he thought we would be ``finding some path forward'' with a different dollar figure. The day before yesterday, our colleague Senator Cardin said: ``What is the right number? Well, we certainly understand we don't want someone to have higher benefits than what someone can make working.'' At the State level, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut agrees. This is what he said: ``I think sometimes it discourages work. . . . I would put off this extra $600 true-up they're talking about. . . . I don't think we need that.'' That is the Democratic Governor of Connecticut. Like I said, it is not controversial. The Congressional Budget Office says that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive more to stay home than they made on the job. Let me say that one more time. The Congressional Budget Office says that five out of six recipients of this aid--83 percent--receive more to stay home than they made on the job. We all know that is not fair, and it is not workable in a reopening job market. We have already heard from small business owners who had trouble reopening because it would be financially irrational for their employees to come back. This is why Republicans propose to continue providing Federal aid--continue providing hundreds of dollars per week--but do it in a more targeted way while providing even more incentives for rehiring. But now the Speaker of the House apparently signals she rejects this bipartisan consensus and will not let a package go forward unless we continue paying people more not to work. That is apparently the Speaker's position--that she will not let a package go forward unless we continue paying people more not to work. That is what Speaker Pelosi apparently signaled yesterday: No money for schools, no money for households, no second round of the PPP, no more money for hospitals or testing, nothing at all unless we continue to pay people more not to work. If the Democrats don't get to continue taxing essential workers to pay other people more to stay home, then nobody gets a dime. To put it gently, that is a completely unhinged position. Sixty-two percent of Americans say that paying people extra to remain unemployed creates the wrong incentive. A Democratic Governor says he doesn't want that continuing. Her own deputy, the House Democratic majority leader, said yesterday that there should be room to negotiate. But Speaker Pelosi is literally moving the goalposts so fast that even Democrats can't keep up, and now she apparently feels that any rescue package will have to be to the political left of her own Democratic majority leader, to the political left of the Democratic Governor of Connecticut or she will not even consider it. She will just refuse to legislate until the election and wish the American families good luck in dealing with the pandemic. These are not the positions of people who are putting the common good above politics. These are not the positions of people who actually want to reach an agreement to save Federal unemployment insurance from completely expiring. The American people deserve better than this. The American people cannot afford for Democrats in Congress to have decided in June that they are finished legislating until November--not during a crisis like this. The country needs help. The country needs action. If Democratic leaders decide they will not negotiate, they will answer to the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4553-6 | null | 1,007 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. ERNST. Madam President, 4 years ago, Jill Larsen opened Crayons 2 Pencils Early Learning Center in Norwalk, IA. This state of the art childcare center offers full day, before and after school care, and preschool-only programs for children from 6 weeks old to school age. They have even expanded to include a learning center and recreation center. It truly is topnotch. But when COVID-19 hit, Crayons 2 Pencils' enrollment dropped from 150 children to 32. And it was only through the Paycheck Protection Program that this childcare center was able to stay afloat and keep their workers paid. Jill Larsen's story is not unique. Without the help of the Paycheck Protection Program, so many of our small businesses and childcare programs across the country would have gone under. Ninety-nine percent of Iowa's businesses are small businesses, and the Paycheck Protection Program has been a critical lifeline for so many of them. I hear it time and again on my 99-county tour--most recently on a Main Street tour in Albia with some outstanding female small business owners. Nearly 60,000 small businesses in Iowa have received PPP loans, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs. But, folks, there are more funds left in the program, and many of these folks need additional help. That is why we should allow our most distressed businesses to receive a second PPP loan--so they can continue to keep workers paid and their doors open. The HEALS Act would make that possible. While the Paycheck Protection Program helped the Crayons 2 Pencils daycare center keep their employees paid, as folks are getting back to work, these critical facilities are facing new challenges--making up for losses from decreased enrollment, trying to expand to accommodate more kiddos due to school closures, or acquiring critical medical supplies or PPE to create a safe and clean environment for these families. Just recently, I held a telephone townhall, and I was joined by Iowa's director of health and human services, Kelly Garcia. We heard the concerns of Iowa parents and talked about the solutions we are working on at the State and Federal levels when it comes to childcare access and affordability. Our working parents are anxious and concerned about what lies ahead. Do they have to quit their jobs to stay at home with the kids? How much will childcare cost? What happens if childcare providers can't open back up? This is the reality for so many. That is why I made it a top priority to provide additional resources for our childcare programs and our families. Included in the HEALS Act is my bill to create back-to-work childcare grants, which would give providers the resources they need to make it through this crisis. It would also help them access PPE and other medical supplies so they can adhere to the safety guidelines and provide a clean and safe environment. But it doesn't stop there. I am also working to assist our lower income families, those who rely on the child care and development block grants and those who simply need access to clean diapers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in Davenport, IA, where I got to take part in a diaper distribution with the Hiney Heroes of the Quad Cities--yes, Hiney Heroes. As a result of this visit, the folks over at Huggies and the National Diaper Bank donated 25,000 diapers to this important diaper bank. We know that during this pandemic, the diaper supply has run short. I have teamed up with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy on this effort to include additional assistance for our diaper banks. COVID-19 has also created challenges for our farmers. These hard-working folks are facing new challenges while working around the clock to make sure Americans have adequate access to food and fuel. I was visiting with some farmers at the Bloomfield Livestock Market in Davis County not long ago, and they described these hardships firsthand. I hear the same from our ethanol and biodiesel producers. That is why I helped ensure more aid for our farmers and producers, including our ethanol producers and so many other important commodities in Iowa. In our rural communities--like Montgomery County, where I live--COVID-19 has only amplified existing financial pressures on our healthcare centers. Most rural hospitals rely on services such as elective surgery to keep them financially afloat, but because of the pandemic and the response to it, many hospitals have had to cancel these elective surgeries as protective measures due to the pandemic. Additionally, the need for PPE and other equipment has significantly increased. Lower revenue combined with higher expenses has made it incredibly difficult for these rural hospitals to stay afloat. We absolutely can't leave these folks behind. We need our hospitals to keep their doors open so that quality healthcare is accessible to all Iowans, whether they live in the big cities like Des Moines and Polk County or small communities like Red Oak, where I live, in Montgomery County. As I have toured Iowa over the last several weeks, I have also visited with many of our essential workers. Our nurses, grocery store clerks, truckdrivers, childcare providers, and so many more have been working on the frontlines of this pandemic, rising to the challenge to care for and protect Iowans. That is why I am pushing hard to allow these essential workers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars by suspending Federal income and payroll taxes. These folks deserve a reward for their tireless efforts. No amount of financial relief will make this virus go away, but Congress has a role to play in helping families get back on their feet, but it is also every single one of us doing our part--wearing our masks, washing our hands, and social distancing as much as possible. Together, with the help of every individual and all levels of government, we will get through this. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ERNST | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4567 | null | 1,008 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | China Mr. President, another aspect of the COVID-19 legislation is a part of the bill that focuses on how we deal with bringing back our personal protective gear production from overseas, particularly from China, and how to deal with the concern we have that other countries are taking the research we are doing on therapies and cures. By the way, there are substantial, more resources, billions of dollars that go into that in this bill. Right now, in labs all around America, some of the best and brightest minds are at work on therapies, cures, and vaccines for COVID-19. It has changed all of our lives in the past few months, and we stand to benefit from these medical breakthroughs, and we want them to have them. So, again, Congress has already appropriated billions of dollars. In the McConnell proposal, there are billions more for this purpose, and that is appropriate. Yet, as we work to find a cure, there are troubling reports emerging that China, in particular, is actively trying to take this research for itself. As the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned in May, there has been a pattern of ``targeting and compromise of U.S. organizations conducting COVID-19-related research by PRC-affiliated cyber actors and non-traditional collectors.'' FBI Director Wray was even more pointed about this threat earlier this month, stating on July 7: ``At this very moment, China is working to compromise American health care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic institutions conducting essential COVID-19 research.'' Just last week, the Justice Department filed charges against a Chinese researcher who failed to disclose her ties to the People's Liberation Army while conducting medical research at Stanford University. While she was not accused of stealing the research in this case, this kind of arrangement, wherein scholars are essentially agents of the Chinese Government in order to gain access to our cutting-edge labs around the country to find research to sneak back into China, is all too common. That China would attempt to steal our research for its own benefit is, unfortunately, not surprising. As we have all seen over the past few months, China's failure to live up to its international commitments on critical issues like transparency and human rights have led to some of the issues we have had, particularly with regard to the lack of transparency on the unchecked spread of the coronavirus from Wuhan. Frankly, relations with China are not good right now, in part, because of that. Unfortunately, our problems with China extend to our labs and our universities. As chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led a bipartisan investigation last year into this issue. Over the course of a year, we learned how the Chinese Communist Party has used so-called talent recruitment programs--notably, its Thousand Talents Plan--to systematically target the most promising U.S.-based research and researchers and pay them to take their American taxpayer-funded research back to Chinese universities. While stealing this research is bad enough, what is worse is that it is not taken for academic purposes. Instead, according to the State Department witness at our hearing last November, ``the Chinese Communist Party has declared the Chinese university system to be on the front line of military-civilian fusion efforts for technology acquisition.'' That means there is a clear link between the research being taken from American labs and the latest advancement in China's military and its economy. There has been more recent attention to this topic of research theft, which is a good thing. We need to talk about it and we need to expose it and we need to deal with it. Recently, both FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Barrhave spoken about this threat. In fact, Director Wray announced that the FBI is opening a new China-related investigation on this topic every 10 hours--a new investigation every 10 hours--with around 2,500 counterintelligence investigations now going on around the country. We have seen this type of research theft in my home State of Ohio, unfortunately. Just a couple of months ago, a National Institutes of Health-funded researcher, affiliated with both the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University, was accused of hiding that he had received more than $3 million from the Chinese Government to effectively take and replicate his Cleveland Clinic research at a lab in China. He is actually accused of taking biological samples from Cleveland, OH, to Wuhan, China. And this was taxpayer-paid research by the NIH. He is not alone. The NIH has recently reported that 54 scientists and researchers have either resigned or been fired as a result of an NIH investigation into American taxpayer-funded grant recipients for their failure to disclose financial ties to foreign governments, particularly China. In fact, according to the NIH investigation, more than 90 percent of the scientists had undisclosed ties to China. Unfortunately, as it stands, our law enforcement agencies can't go directly after these researchers for hiding their foreign conflict of interest--for not telling the truth--while taking taxpayer money. As important as it is that we speak out against these improper actions by China around the world, it is also critical that we take steps to clean up our own house right here in the United States and make America more resilient against China. One way we can do that is by stopping research developed in our labs and universities from going to benefit China's military and economy at our expense. I am pleased to say we have an opportunity to change that right now because this legislation is included in the COVID-19 legislation and in doing so take a stand in a bipartisan manner in defense of our values of research transparency, collaboration, fairness, and national security. Our legislation is called the Safeguarding American Innovation Act, and I introduced it, along with Senator Tom Carper and a group of bipartisan Senators, to ensure that individuals are held accountable for failing to disclose their foreign ties on Federal grant applications. It will also reform the State Department's vetting process for issuing visas to foreign researchers. It will require more safeguards on sensitive research from our research institutions and our universities and will help us better track who is working on taxpayer-funded research. This bill is ready to pass the Senate. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to approve it last week with bipartisan and unanimous consent. I am pleased to say that, again, Leader McConnell has chosen to include this legislation in his phase 5 proposal, the CARES 2.0 package, because it will help protect taxpayer-funded COVID-19 research and serve as a safeguard for the $150 billion that Americans give to scientists to conduct research every year. That is the taxpayer funding that goes into our research institutions. In that regard, including the Safeguarding American Innovation Act in this CARES 2.0 bill can and should be viewed as a fiscally responsible measure as we continue to take a firmer stance against behavior that China has gotten away with for way too long. Let's do all we can to put vulnerable American institutions on a solid footing as well. It is time to put an end to the Chinese Communist Party's theft of our taxpayer-funded research, including COVID-19 research. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Safeguarding American Innovation Act. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4576 | null | 1,009 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | China Mr. President, another aspect of the COVID-19 legislation is a part of the bill that focuses on how we deal with bringing back our personal protective gear production from overseas, particularly from China, and how to deal with the concern we have that other countries are taking the research we are doing on therapies and cures. By the way, there are substantial, more resources, billions of dollars that go into that in this bill. Right now, in labs all around America, some of the best and brightest minds are at work on therapies, cures, and vaccines for COVID-19. It has changed all of our lives in the past few months, and we stand to benefit from these medical breakthroughs, and we want them to have them. So, again, Congress has already appropriated billions of dollars. In the McConnell proposal, there are billions more for this purpose, and that is appropriate. Yet, as we work to find a cure, there are troubling reports emerging that China, in particular, is actively trying to take this research for itself. As the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned in May, there has been a pattern of ``targeting and compromise of U.S. organizations conducting COVID-19-related research by PRC-affiliated cyber actors and non-traditional collectors.'' FBI Director Wray was even more pointed about this threat earlier this month, stating on July 7: ``At this very moment, China is working to compromise American health care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic institutions conducting essential COVID-19 research.'' Just last week, the Justice Department filed charges against a Chinese researcher who failed to disclose her ties to the People's Liberation Army while conducting medical research at Stanford University. While she was not accused of stealing the research in this case, this kind of arrangement, wherein scholars are essentially agents of the Chinese Government in order to gain access to our cutting-edge labs around the country to find research to sneak back into China, is all too common. That China would attempt to steal our research for its own benefit is, unfortunately, not surprising. As we have all seen over the past few months, China's failure to live up to its international commitments on critical issues like transparency and human rights have led to some of the issues we have had, particularly with regard to the lack of transparency on the unchecked spread of the coronavirus from Wuhan. Frankly, relations with China are not good right now, in part, because of that. Unfortunately, our problems with China extend to our labs and our universities. As chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led a bipartisan investigation last year into this issue. Over the course of a year, we learned how the Chinese Communist Party has used so-called talent recruitment programs--notably, its Thousand Talents Plan--to systematically target the most promising U.S.-based research and researchers and pay them to take their American taxpayer-funded research back to Chinese universities. While stealing this research is bad enough, what is worse is that it is not taken for academic purposes. Instead, according to the State Department witness at our hearing last November, ``the Chinese Communist Party has declared the Chinese university system to be on the front line of military-civilian fusion efforts for technology acquisition.'' That means there is a clear link between the research being taken from American labs and the latest advancement in China's military and its economy. There has been more recent attention to this topic of research theft, which is a good thing. We need to talk about it and we need to expose it and we need to deal with it. Recently, both FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Barrhave spoken about this threat. In fact, Director Wray announced that the FBI is opening a new China-related investigation on this topic every 10 hours--a new investigation every 10 hours--with around 2,500 counterintelligence investigations now going on around the country. We have seen this type of research theft in my home State of Ohio, unfortunately. Just a couple of months ago, a National Institutes of Health-funded researcher, affiliated with both the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University, was accused of hiding that he had received more than $3 million from the Chinese Government to effectively take and replicate his Cleveland Clinic research at a lab in China. He is actually accused of taking biological samples from Cleveland, OH, to Wuhan, China. And this was taxpayer-paid research by the NIH. He is not alone. The NIH has recently reported that 54 scientists and researchers have either resigned or been fired as a result of an NIH investigation into American taxpayer-funded grant recipients for their failure to disclose financial ties to foreign governments, particularly China. In fact, according to the NIH investigation, more than 90 percent of the scientists had undisclosed ties to China. Unfortunately, as it stands, our law enforcement agencies can't go directly after these researchers for hiding their foreign conflict of interest--for not telling the truth--while taking taxpayer money. As important as it is that we speak out against these improper actions by China around the world, it is also critical that we take steps to clean up our own house right here in the United States and make America more resilient against China. One way we can do that is by stopping research developed in our labs and universities from going to benefit China's military and economy at our expense. I am pleased to say we have an opportunity to change that right now because this legislation is included in the COVID-19 legislation and in doing so take a stand in a bipartisan manner in defense of our values of research transparency, collaboration, fairness, and national security. Our legislation is called the Safeguarding American Innovation Act, and I introduced it, along with Senator Tom Carper and a group of bipartisan Senators, to ensure that individuals are held accountable for failing to disclose their foreign ties on Federal grant applications. It will also reform the State Department's vetting process for issuing visas to foreign researchers. It will require more safeguards on sensitive research from our research institutions and our universities and will help us better track who is working on taxpayer-funded research. This bill is ready to pass the Senate. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to approve it last week with bipartisan and unanimous consent. I am pleased to say that, again, Leader McConnell has chosen to include this legislation in his phase 5 proposal, the CARES 2.0 package, because it will help protect taxpayer-funded COVID-19 research and serve as a safeguard for the $150 billion that Americans give to scientists to conduct research every year. That is the taxpayer funding that goes into our research institutions. In that regard, including the Safeguarding American Innovation Act in this CARES 2.0 bill can and should be viewed as a fiscally responsible measure as we continue to take a firmer stance against behavior that China has gotten away with for way too long. Let's do all we can to put vulnerable American institutions on a solid footing as well. It is time to put an end to the Chinese Communist Party's theft of our taxpayer-funded research, including COVID-19 research. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Safeguarding American Innovation Act. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4576 | null | 1,010 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | China Mr. President, another aspect of the COVID-19 legislation is a part of the bill that focuses on how we deal with bringing back our personal protective gear production from overseas, particularly from China, and how to deal with the concern we have that other countries are taking the research we are doing on therapies and cures. By the way, there are substantial, more resources, billions of dollars that go into that in this bill. Right now, in labs all around America, some of the best and brightest minds are at work on therapies, cures, and vaccines for COVID-19. It has changed all of our lives in the past few months, and we stand to benefit from these medical breakthroughs, and we want them to have them. So, again, Congress has already appropriated billions of dollars. In the McConnell proposal, there are billions more for this purpose, and that is appropriate. Yet, as we work to find a cure, there are troubling reports emerging that China, in particular, is actively trying to take this research for itself. As the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned in May, there has been a pattern of ``targeting and compromise of U.S. organizations conducting COVID-19-related research by PRC-affiliated cyber actors and non-traditional collectors.'' FBI Director Wray was even more pointed about this threat earlier this month, stating on July 7: ``At this very moment, China is working to compromise American health care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic institutions conducting essential COVID-19 research.'' Just last week, the Justice Department filed charges against a Chinese researcher who failed to disclose her ties to the People's Liberation Army while conducting medical research at Stanford University. While she was not accused of stealing the research in this case, this kind of arrangement, wherein scholars are essentially agents of the Chinese Government in order to gain access to our cutting-edge labs around the country to find research to sneak back into China, is all too common. That China would attempt to steal our research for its own benefit is, unfortunately, not surprising. As we have all seen over the past few months, China's failure to live up to its international commitments on critical issues like transparency and human rights have led to some of the issues we have had, particularly with regard to the lack of transparency on the unchecked spread of the coronavirus from Wuhan. Frankly, relations with China are not good right now, in part, because of that. Unfortunately, our problems with China extend to our labs and our universities. As chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led a bipartisan investigation last year into this issue. Over the course of a year, we learned how the Chinese Communist Party has used so-called talent recruitment programs--notably, its Thousand Talents Plan--to systematically target the most promising U.S.-based research and researchers and pay them to take their American taxpayer-funded research back to Chinese universities. While stealing this research is bad enough, what is worse is that it is not taken for academic purposes. Instead, according to the State Department witness at our hearing last November, ``the Chinese Communist Party has declared the Chinese university system to be on the front line of military-civilian fusion efforts for technology acquisition.'' That means there is a clear link between the research being taken from American labs and the latest advancement in China's military and its economy. There has been more recent attention to this topic of research theft, which is a good thing. We need to talk about it and we need to expose it and we need to deal with it. Recently, both FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Barrhave spoken about this threat. In fact, Director Wray announced that the FBI is opening a new China-related investigation on this topic every 10 hours--a new investigation every 10 hours--with around 2,500 counterintelligence investigations now going on around the country. We have seen this type of research theft in my home State of Ohio, unfortunately. Just a couple of months ago, a National Institutes of Health-funded researcher, affiliated with both the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University, was accused of hiding that he had received more than $3 million from the Chinese Government to effectively take and replicate his Cleveland Clinic research at a lab in China. He is actually accused of taking biological samples from Cleveland, OH, to Wuhan, China. And this was taxpayer-paid research by the NIH. He is not alone. The NIH has recently reported that 54 scientists and researchers have either resigned or been fired as a result of an NIH investigation into American taxpayer-funded grant recipients for their failure to disclose financial ties to foreign governments, particularly China. In fact, according to the NIH investigation, more than 90 percent of the scientists had undisclosed ties to China. Unfortunately, as it stands, our law enforcement agencies can't go directly after these researchers for hiding their foreign conflict of interest--for not telling the truth--while taking taxpayer money. As important as it is that we speak out against these improper actions by China around the world, it is also critical that we take steps to clean up our own house right here in the United States and make America more resilient against China. One way we can do that is by stopping research developed in our labs and universities from going to benefit China's military and economy at our expense. I am pleased to say we have an opportunity to change that right now because this legislation is included in the COVID-19 legislation and in doing so take a stand in a bipartisan manner in defense of our values of research transparency, collaboration, fairness, and national security. Our legislation is called the Safeguarding American Innovation Act, and I introduced it, along with Senator Tom Carper and a group of bipartisan Senators, to ensure that individuals are held accountable for failing to disclose their foreign ties on Federal grant applications. It will also reform the State Department's vetting process for issuing visas to foreign researchers. It will require more safeguards on sensitive research from our research institutions and our universities and will help us better track who is working on taxpayer-funded research. This bill is ready to pass the Senate. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to approve it last week with bipartisan and unanimous consent. I am pleased to say that, again, Leader McConnell has chosen to include this legislation in his phase 5 proposal, the CARES 2.0 package, because it will help protect taxpayer-funded COVID-19 research and serve as a safeguard for the $150 billion that Americans give to scientists to conduct research every year. That is the taxpayer funding that goes into our research institutions. In that regard, including the Safeguarding American Innovation Act in this CARES 2.0 bill can and should be viewed as a fiscally responsible measure as we continue to take a firmer stance against behavior that China has gotten away with for way too long. Let's do all we can to put vulnerable American institutions on a solid footing as well. It is time to put an end to the Chinese Communist Party's theft of our taxpayer-funded research, including COVID-19 research. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Safeguarding American Innovation Act. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4576 | null | 1,011 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Multiemployer Pension Plans Mr. President, I am also here on floor today to talk about another critical issue we should be addressing. As we speak, there continues to be a looming crisis involving what is called our multiemployer pension system, and without reform, it is going to result in pension benefit cuts of over 90 percent for more than 1.4 million American workers and retirees and unnecessary bankruptcies for a lot of small businesses, including many in my home State of Ohio. Multiemployer pension plans are defined benefit plans maintained by a lot of different companies, multiple companies, and a labor union that pool together their pension assets to cover all workers and retirees in the plan. The multiemployer system now comprises roughly 1,400 plans covering almost 11 million participants and their families Unfortunately, it is on the verge of collapse. Years of bad Federal policy with respect to funding and withdrawal, liability rules, losses on risky investments, and failure to take proactive action have led to this crisis, and the current economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus has made the situation even worse. Not only is the system underfunded by about $638 billion, but the Federal entity that insures these pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is also projected to become insolvent in less than 5 years. So the multiemployer part of the PBGC, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is projected to become insolvent in less than 5 years. We can't let that happen. In my home State of Ohio, we have more than 50,000 active workers and retirees in multiemployer pension plans who are facing deep benefit cuts if we do nothing, with hundreds of small businesses contributing to these plans that could be forced to close if we fail to act. There are about 200 small businesses in Ohio that are going to have huge liabilities, many of which are not going to be able to continue to operate. We can't let that happen. Nearly 42,000 of those Ohioans, by the way--many of them veterans--participate in a single plan called the Central States Pension Fund, which is also the largest plan considered to be in what is called critical and declining status and is projected to become insolvent by 2025. It is that insolvency that will take down the PBGC if it is not already insolvent. The good news is that proactive action now will reduce the cost of fixing the problem, will ensure a secure retirement for these participants and their families, and will ensure certainty for employers to make investments in good-paying jobs. The further good news is that the House Democratic proposal which passed as part of the Heroes Act--it is called the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act--is more similar to the Senate version, the Senate Republican structure, than the previous Democratic plan. So not only is the Democratic plan in their COVID-19 response bill, called the Heroes Act, but it is also more similar in structure to legislation that some of us have been working on over here on the Senate side. That means we have a better shot, I believe, this year than we have had in a long time to try to solve this crisis and do it in a bipartisan way. In my view, in order to solve this, it is going to entail three key principles: First, we are all in this together, and that means we all have a shared responsibility. House Democrats have proposed using only taxpayer money to rescue these plans. None of the stakeholders are asked to, again, have any shared responsibility. That is not the way to get bipartisan support in Congress. Employers and participants must also share the responsibility, especially since about 94 percent of taxpayers do not participate in this system, many of whom are struggling with their own retirement security. As an example, somewhat higher employer contributions are required if multiemployer plans are to sustainably provide the benefits they promise. Second, we need to ensure that we safeguard the long-term financial health of the PBGC so we aren't back in this fiscal crisis again soon. Part of that should be a new, small, variable-rate premium for plans, but we also need participants in federally rescued plans to pitch in with solvency fees paid directly to the PBGC. These do not have to be large payments. The Federal Government and the taxpayer, I think, are willing to play a role as long as this is viewed as something that is part of shared responsibility. But it is important that all stakeholders are contributing to the health of the PBGC in addition to ushere in Congress and therefore the taxpayers because insolvency would be in no one's interest. Finally, we have to ensure that there is long-term solvency for these multiemployer plans. That entails enacting some restructuring, some structural reforms to the funding rules governing employer contributions so that bailing out these plans doesn't become a habit of the Federal Government. We don't want to fix this problem and be right back in a few years having to fix it again. We should gradually phase down the rate of return which plans assume in budgeting for promises that are made to participants, partly because that keeps these plans from going bankrupt and partly because that is just fair. Investment risk is a problem in these plans now, and we need to give more certainty to workers and retirees. The pension crisis is an issue that I, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, and many other colleagues here in the Senate, have been trying to solve for quite a long time. We had a bicameral and bipartisan solution very close at hand at the conclusion of a committee process that ended about a year and a half ago, but we weren't quite able to get there. I think it is achievable, particularly now, but only if we are willing to listen to each other and willing to come around the table for a real discussion. Republicans have reached out. I reach out today. We are ready to find an acceptable compromise. We are ready to talk, but that discussion needs to be driven by the merits of solving this issue, not just the politics of the moment. We owe solving this problem to those beneficiaries--the retirees, the workers, the active workers in these plans--and to the small businesses participating in these plans. We have to find common ground. We have to deliver a sustainable and lasting solution. I believe we have an opportunity right now, this month, to try to come together, working with the House and the Senate and the administration. Everybody has a responsibility to do it. We talked about shared responsibility with regard to the plans; there is also a shared accountability here in the U.S. Congress. This is our job. We can get this done. I think we are quite close now with similar structures and having gone through various iterations during the select committee process a year and a half ago. Let's do the right thing. Let's act now. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4577 | null | 1,012 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Multiemployer Pension Plans Mr. President, I am also here on floor today to talk about another critical issue we should be addressing. As we speak, there continues to be a looming crisis involving what is called our multiemployer pension system, and without reform, it is going to result in pension benefit cuts of over 90 percent for more than 1.4 million American workers and retirees and unnecessary bankruptcies for a lot of small businesses, including many in my home State of Ohio. Multiemployer pension plans are defined benefit plans maintained by a lot of different companies, multiple companies, and a labor union that pool together their pension assets to cover all workers and retirees in the plan. The multiemployer system now comprises roughly 1,400 plans covering almost 11 million participants and their families Unfortunately, it is on the verge of collapse. Years of bad Federal policy with respect to funding and withdrawal, liability rules, losses on risky investments, and failure to take proactive action have led to this crisis, and the current economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus has made the situation even worse. Not only is the system underfunded by about $638 billion, but the Federal entity that insures these pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is also projected to become insolvent in less than 5 years. So the multiemployer part of the PBGC, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is projected to become insolvent in less than 5 years. We can't let that happen. In my home State of Ohio, we have more than 50,000 active workers and retirees in multiemployer pension plans who are facing deep benefit cuts if we do nothing, with hundreds of small businesses contributing to these plans that could be forced to close if we fail to act. There are about 200 small businesses in Ohio that are going to have huge liabilities, many of which are not going to be able to continue to operate. We can't let that happen. Nearly 42,000 of those Ohioans, by the way--many of them veterans--participate in a single plan called the Central States Pension Fund, which is also the largest plan considered to be in what is called critical and declining status and is projected to become insolvent by 2025. It is that insolvency that will take down the PBGC if it is not already insolvent. The good news is that proactive action now will reduce the cost of fixing the problem, will ensure a secure retirement for these participants and their families, and will ensure certainty for employers to make investments in good-paying jobs. The further good news is that the House Democratic proposal which passed as part of the Heroes Act--it is called the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act--is more similar to the Senate version, the Senate Republican structure, than the previous Democratic plan. So not only is the Democratic plan in their COVID-19 response bill, called the Heroes Act, but it is also more similar in structure to legislation that some of us have been working on over here on the Senate side. That means we have a better shot, I believe, this year than we have had in a long time to try to solve this crisis and do it in a bipartisan way. In my view, in order to solve this, it is going to entail three key principles: First, we are all in this together, and that means we all have a shared responsibility. House Democrats have proposed using only taxpayer money to rescue these plans. None of the stakeholders are asked to, again, have any shared responsibility. That is not the way to get bipartisan support in Congress. Employers and participants must also share the responsibility, especially since about 94 percent of taxpayers do not participate in this system, many of whom are struggling with their own retirement security. As an example, somewhat higher employer contributions are required if multiemployer plans are to sustainably provide the benefits they promise. Second, we need to ensure that we safeguard the long-term financial health of the PBGC so we aren't back in this fiscal crisis again soon. Part of that should be a new, small, variable-rate premium for plans, but we also need participants in federally rescued plans to pitch in with solvency fees paid directly to the PBGC. These do not have to be large payments. The Federal Government and the taxpayer, I think, are willing to play a role as long as this is viewed as something that is part of shared responsibility. But it is important that all stakeholders are contributing to the health of the PBGC in addition to ushere in Congress and therefore the taxpayers because insolvency would be in no one's interest. Finally, we have to ensure that there is long-term solvency for these multiemployer plans. That entails enacting some restructuring, some structural reforms to the funding rules governing employer contributions so that bailing out these plans doesn't become a habit of the Federal Government. We don't want to fix this problem and be right back in a few years having to fix it again. We should gradually phase down the rate of return which plans assume in budgeting for promises that are made to participants, partly because that keeps these plans from going bankrupt and partly because that is just fair. Investment risk is a problem in these plans now, and we need to give more certainty to workers and retirees. The pension crisis is an issue that I, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, and many other colleagues here in the Senate, have been trying to solve for quite a long time. We had a bicameral and bipartisan solution very close at hand at the conclusion of a committee process that ended about a year and a half ago, but we weren't quite able to get there. I think it is achievable, particularly now, but only if we are willing to listen to each other and willing to come around the table for a real discussion. Republicans have reached out. I reach out today. We are ready to find an acceptable compromise. We are ready to talk, but that discussion needs to be driven by the merits of solving this issue, not just the politics of the moment. We owe solving this problem to those beneficiaries--the retirees, the workers, the active workers in these plans--and to the small businesses participating in these plans. We have to find common ground. We have to deliver a sustainable and lasting solution. I believe we have an opportunity right now, this month, to try to come together, working with the House and the Senate and the administration. Everybody has a responsibility to do it. We talked about shared responsibility with regard to the plans; there is also a shared accountability here in the U.S. Congress. This is our job. We can get this done. I think we are quite close now with similar structures and having gone through various iterations during the select committee process a year and a half ago. Let's do the right thing. Let's act now. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4577 | null | 1,013 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Multiemployer Pension Plans Mr. President, I am also here on floor today to talk about another critical issue we should be addressing. As we speak, there continues to be a looming crisis involving what is called our multiemployer pension system, and without reform, it is going to result in pension benefit cuts of over 90 percent for more than 1.4 million American workers and retirees and unnecessary bankruptcies for a lot of small businesses, including many in my home State of Ohio. Multiemployer pension plans are defined benefit plans maintained by a lot of different companies, multiple companies, and a labor union that pool together their pension assets to cover all workers and retirees in the plan. The multiemployer system now comprises roughly 1,400 plans covering almost 11 million participants and their families Unfortunately, it is on the verge of collapse. Years of bad Federal policy with respect to funding and withdrawal, liability rules, losses on risky investments, and failure to take proactive action have led to this crisis, and the current economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus has made the situation even worse. Not only is the system underfunded by about $638 billion, but the Federal entity that insures these pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is also projected to become insolvent in less than 5 years. So the multiemployer part of the PBGC, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, is projected to become insolvent in less than 5 years. We can't let that happen. In my home State of Ohio, we have more than 50,000 active workers and retirees in multiemployer pension plans who are facing deep benefit cuts if we do nothing, with hundreds of small businesses contributing to these plans that could be forced to close if we fail to act. There are about 200 small businesses in Ohio that are going to have huge liabilities, many of which are not going to be able to continue to operate. We can't let that happen. Nearly 42,000 of those Ohioans, by the way--many of them veterans--participate in a single plan called the Central States Pension Fund, which is also the largest plan considered to be in what is called critical and declining status and is projected to become insolvent by 2025. It is that insolvency that will take down the PBGC if it is not already insolvent. The good news is that proactive action now will reduce the cost of fixing the problem, will ensure a secure retirement for these participants and their families, and will ensure certainty for employers to make investments in good-paying jobs. The further good news is that the House Democratic proposal which passed as part of the Heroes Act--it is called the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act--is more similar to the Senate version, the Senate Republican structure, than the previous Democratic plan. So not only is the Democratic plan in their COVID-19 response bill, called the Heroes Act, but it is also more similar in structure to legislation that some of us have been working on over here on the Senate side. That means we have a better shot, I believe, this year than we have had in a long time to try to solve this crisis and do it in a bipartisan way. In my view, in order to solve this, it is going to entail three key principles: First, we are all in this together, and that means we all have a shared responsibility. House Democrats have proposed using only taxpayer money to rescue these plans. None of the stakeholders are asked to, again, have any shared responsibility. That is not the way to get bipartisan support in Congress. Employers and participants must also share the responsibility, especially since about 94 percent of taxpayers do not participate in this system, many of whom are struggling with their own retirement security. As an example, somewhat higher employer contributions are required if multiemployer plans are to sustainably provide the benefits they promise. Second, we need to ensure that we safeguard the long-term financial health of the PBGC so we aren't back in this fiscal crisis again soon. Part of that should be a new, small, variable-rate premium for plans, but we also need participants in federally rescued plans to pitch in with solvency fees paid directly to the PBGC. These do not have to be large payments. The Federal Government and the taxpayer, I think, are willing to play a role as long as this is viewed as something that is part of shared responsibility. But it is important that all stakeholders are contributing to the health of the PBGC in addition to ushere in Congress and therefore the taxpayers because insolvency would be in no one's interest. Finally, we have to ensure that there is long-term solvency for these multiemployer plans. That entails enacting some restructuring, some structural reforms to the funding rules governing employer contributions so that bailing out these plans doesn't become a habit of the Federal Government. We don't want to fix this problem and be right back in a few years having to fix it again. We should gradually phase down the rate of return which plans assume in budgeting for promises that are made to participants, partly because that keeps these plans from going bankrupt and partly because that is just fair. Investment risk is a problem in these plans now, and we need to give more certainty to workers and retirees. The pension crisis is an issue that I, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, and many other colleagues here in the Senate, have been trying to solve for quite a long time. We had a bicameral and bipartisan solution very close at hand at the conclusion of a committee process that ended about a year and a half ago, but we weren't quite able to get there. I think it is achievable, particularly now, but only if we are willing to listen to each other and willing to come around the table for a real discussion. Republicans have reached out. I reach out today. We are ready to find an acceptable compromise. We are ready to talk, but that discussion needs to be driven by the merits of solving this issue, not just the politics of the moment. We owe solving this problem to those beneficiaries--the retirees, the workers, the active workers in these plans--and to the small businesses participating in these plans. We have to find common ground. We have to deliver a sustainable and lasting solution. I believe we have an opportunity right now, this month, to try to come together, working with the House and the Senate and the administration. Everybody has a responsibility to do it. We talked about shared responsibility with regard to the plans; there is also a shared accountability here in the U.S. Congress. This is our job. We can get this done. I think we are quite close now with similar structures and having gone through various iterations during the select committee process a year and a half ago. Let's do the right thing. Let's act now. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4577 | null | 1,014 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, workers right now are dealing with unprecedented challenges and are making great personal sacrifices to keep the country running during this crisis. And the nominees under consideration today for the National Labor Relations Board will play a critical role in safeguarding their rights and protections. That is why I voted for Lauren McFerran to serve another term on the NLRB. She is a dedicated, qualified, and well-respected public servant who had a proven track record of fighting for workers before she joined the Board and has stood by workers in enforcing these fundamental protections during her time on the NLRB. But unfortunately, the opposite is true for Marvin Kaplan, the Republican nominee to the NLRB. Mr. Kaplan spent his career working to further corporations' interests and gut workers' rights instead of protecting them. That is why Democrats opposed his nomination in 2017, and that is exactly what he has done since joining the NLRB. He is exactly wrong to serve another term on the NLRB, and that is why I voted against his confirmation. I am also extremely disappointed we do not have the nomination of another highly qualified Democrat to the NLRB, Jennifer Abruzzo, to consider today. Years of Republican obstruction of highly qualified Democratic nominees to critical worker protection agencies like the NLRB and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shows a blatant disregard for longstanding deference to the minority party and is a significant departure from the customs of this institution. It is unacceptable, and I will not stop pushing for Democratic nominees. I urge my colleagues to vote today to stand up for workers and their rights. I would also like to say that, after months of delay from my Republican colleagues, the COVID relief proposal Republicans put forward this week is incredibly late, profoundly inadequate, and can't credibly be considered a starting point for negotiations. It gives corporations a ``get out of jail free'' card to prevent employers from being held accountable for keeping their workers safe and a license to discriminate including on the basis of age, race, sex, and disability status. And instead of expanding unemployment benefits that have been a lifeline for workers in my home State and across the country--which by the way, are due to expire tomorrow--Republicans have slashed them. This bill doesn't get us anywhere near where we need to be on developing a vaccine that is accessible and affordable to every person and is completelyinadequate in addressing our testing and contract tracing shortfalls. And while Democrats want schools to reopen for in-person learning if it can be done safely, the partisan Republican proposal would put students, educators, and communities at risk. Republicans need to abandon this dangerous one-size-fits all approach to reopening schools in-person and pass our Child Care Education and Relief Act, which would provide $430 billion to address the national child care and education crises during this pandemic. My question to Republican leaders is why, when things are already so hard, are you determined to make them harder for people who are already struggling so much? It is shameful, and we are going to keep calling you to account for it until workers, families, and communities get the support they need. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. MURRAY | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4578-4 | null | 1,015 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-217. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress and the Louisiana congressional delegation to remove the revenue sharing cap on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) of 2006 for Gulf producing states and to take such actions as are necessary to rectify the federal revenue sharing inequities between coastal and interior energy producing states; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. House Concurrent Resolution No. 11 Whereas, many of the energy resources enjoyed by the entire United States are dependent upon the health of Gulf Coast ecosystems which provide access to those resources and related infrastructure and protection for communities that house its workforce; and Whereas, Louisiana is home to thirty percent of the nation's wetlands and ninety percent of its wetlands loss, a crisis that impacts communities, ecosystems, and the very economic engines that contribute to the nation's energy security; and Whereas, under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, fifty percent of the mineral revenues generated from federal lands onshore are shared with the host state to offset impacts of the federal mineral development; this includes royalties, severance taxes, and bonuses, all under no cap: and Whereas, under GOMESA. Gulf producing states, including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, share only thirty-seven and one half percent of the mineral revenues generated by oil and gas production from active leases since 2006 in federal waters and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); and Whereas, currently annual GOMESA revenues for Gulf producing states are capped at three hundred seventy-five million dollars per year, apportioned to the mineral activity supported by each Gulf state; and Whereas, according to the most recent data from the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), Louisiana, within its territorial boundaries, is the ninth largest producer of oil in the United States, but it is the second largest oil producer in the country if oil production from adjacent federal waters is included; and Whereas, according to the most recent data from the EIA, Louisiana, within its territorial boundaries, is the fourth largest producer of gas in the United States, but it is the second largest gas producer in the country if gas production from adjacent federal waters is included; and Whereas, Louisiana contributes to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve with two facilities located in the state consisting of twenty-nine caverns capable of holding nearly three hundred million barrels of crude oil; and Whereas, with a number of onshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities and others already permitted, more LNG facilities than any other state in the country, and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, the nation's only deepwater oil port, Louisiana plays an essential role in the movement of natural gas and crude oil from the United States Gulf Coast region to markets throughout the country and the world; and Whereas, the majority of the oil and gas production from the Gulf of Mexico enters the United States through coastal Louisiana with all of the infrastructure necessary to receive and transport such production; and Whereas, because Louisiana is losing more coastal wetlands than any other state in the country, in 2006 the people of Louisiana overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment dedicating revenues received from OCS oil and gas activity through GOMESA to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund for the purposes of coastal protection, including conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, and infrastructure directly impacted by coastal wetland losses; and Whereas, the state of Louisiana has developed, through a science-based and stakeholder-involved process, a ``Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast'' which identifies and prioritizes the most efficient and effective projects in order to meet the state's critical coastal protection and restoration needs and has received many accolades from the country's scientific community; and Whereas, the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority is making great progress implementing the projects contained in the ``Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast'' with all available funding, projects that are essential to the protection of the infrastructure that is critical to the energy needs of the United States; and Whereas, for the state of Louisiana and our coastal parishes, the GOMESA revenue stream is a critical recurring source of revenue that allows our state and coastal parishes to address our coastal protection and restoration needs to support our working coast. Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby memorialize the United States Congress and the Louisiana congressional delegation to remove the revenue sharing cap on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 for Gulf producing states and to take such actions as are necessary to rectify the federal revenue sharing inequities between coastal and interior energy producing states. Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional delegation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-29-pt1-PgS4581-6 | null | 1,016 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on Monday, Senate Republicans released a starting proposal for another major pandemic rescue package. This is what we want to do: Continue a Federal supplement to unemployment benefits that is otherwise about to expire; send thousands of dollars more in cash to American families; keep funding the Payroll Protection Program to prevent more layoffs; subsidize rehiring to get laid-off workers their jobs back and create new incentives for workplace safety; give K-12 schools, colleges, and universities funding to reopen safely--more money than the House Democrats have proposed; support healthcare providers in the latest hotspots and keep supporting the race for vaccines; provide commonsense legal protection so that schools, hospitals, and other employers can reopen without being buried in lawsuits. That is what we put forward--a trillion dollars for kids, jobs, and healthcare. It is a framework that is more generous in key areas than House Democrats' totally unserious proposal--a framework that could have kept the additional Federal payments to unemployed workers flowing instead of expiring this week. There is a fact of life here in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to legislate, so the American people cannot get any of the additional relief that Republicans want to give them unless Democrats at least come to the table. Either our Democratic colleagues come to the table or the American people will not get the help they need. That is why I said this week we have come down to one key question: Will the country get the Democrats who showed up back in March to pass the bipartisan CARES Act or will the country get the Democrats who showed up in June to block police reform and keep that issue alive through November? Unfortunately, 3 days in, it hasn't been a close call. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader refuse to let anyone else speak on their side. I understand the Democratic leader has actually forbidden--forbidden his own Democratic ranking members from talking and negotiating with their Republican counterparts who are spearheading the different components. You see, bipartisan, Member-level discussions might actually generate some progress, and progress does not appearto be something the leaders on the other side want. On Monday, the Speaker of the House claimed she could not wait to start negotiations, but then on Tuesday, she said her discussion with the administration ``isn't a negotiation.'' And then the Speaker said: ``The appropriate thing for the Senate to do is pass a bill and then we can negotiate with them.'' Meanwhile, the Democratic leader is over here making sure that cannot happen. This is quite the partnership: the House Speaker moves the goalposts while the Democratic leader hides the football. They will not engage when the Trump administration tries to discuss our comprehensive plan. They will not engage when the Administration floats a narrower proposal. They, basically, will not engage, period. The Speaker and the Democratic leader are playing rope-a-dope with the health, welfare, and livelihoods of American families. With benefits expiring, with the Paycheck Protection Program winding down, and millions unemployed, the Democrats are saying ``my way or the highway'' with a Socialist wish list that was laughed off by everyone from journalists to economists the instant they introduced it. This is what reporters had to say about Speaker Pelosi's proposal in May: ``The more than 1,800-page bill makes a long wish list for Democrats.'' ``Neither this bill nor anything reassembling it will ever become law.'' Even the Speaker's own Democratic Members knew it was a joke. ``Privately, several House Democrats concede the bill feels more like an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Yet this is what they are holding out for. Let's recall some of the specific items. These are the things over which Democrats are blowing up negotiations and forcing a lapse in extra unemployment benefits: tax increase on small businesses; taxpayer-funded checks for illegal immigrants; taxpayer-funded diversity studies of the legal pot industry; and their ongoing obsession with something called the State and local tax, or SALT, which would be a massive giveaway for high earners in blue States. In other words, a tax cut for high earners in blue States. Let me say that again. Democrats are holding up help for struggling people over special tax breaks for rich people in blue States, an idea that has been criticized by economists from all sides. Republicans want to get more help to families right now, but Speaker Pelosi says: Let them eat SALT. They also want to spend another trillion dollars bailing out State and local governments that only spent--listen to this--25 percent of the money we sent them back in March. Some State and local governments have only spent 25 percent of the money we sent them back in March, and the Speaker and Democratic leader want to send them another trillion dollars. This is silly stuff. None of it should be stopping negotiations and none of it would be if our Democratic colleagues actually wanted to get an outcome. Let's talk about unemployment insurance. Both Republicans and Democrats agree in these extraordinary times it makes sense for the Federal Government to provide the stark additional help on top of normal unemployment. Republicans don't want this aid to expire. Our plan continues it, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not agree to anything unless the program pays people more to stay home than to work. Prominent Democrats have publicly said they agree with our position. The Democratic Governor of Connecticut says he wants to continue the benefit at a more targeted level. Multiple Members of the Senate and Speaker Pelosi's own House Democratic Majority Leader have all said in the last few days that they are open to negotiating this, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader have cut all their colleagues out. They are standing alone, saying: ``Our way or the highway.'' And so people are going to suffer. I understand the Democratic leader said he felt offended when I noted that some people are suggesting the Democrats' strange behavior is explained by politics; that some people think Democrats are behaving like national suffering would only hurt President Trump. Now, the Democratic leader, himself, pointed that exact accusation at various Republicans during the Obama Presidency on multiple occasions. I know memories can be short around here when it is convenient. More broadly, actions speak louder than words. Democrats spent weeks shouting that the Senate should act on police reform, but when Senator Tim Scott gave them the chance, they blocked action. They blocked the Senate from even taking up the subject. And now, so far, this is the sequel. Democrats talked a big game about wanting to provide more assistance, but now that it is ``go time,'' they show zero appetite for any bipartisan outcome at all. This is personal for me. Kentucky has not finished fighting with the coronavirus, and the Federal Government must not be finished helping Kentucky. Laid-off Kentuckians need more help. Kentucky schools need more help. Under our proposal, Kentucky alone would receive $193 million for testing and contact tracing to fight the spread of the disease. This should be just as personal for every single Senator. None of our States deserve the Democrats' rope-a-dope. No American family deserves it. Don't my distinguished ranking member colleagues wish they could be involved in robust bipartisan discussions with our chairman, like back in March, and not watching from the sidelines as their leader shuts down talks on TV? Do they really think the Democratic leader's tactics are serving the common good of their States? Republicans have put forward a framework that would do huge amounts of good for huge numbers of American families. If Democrats ever come to the table, we will be able to bridge our differences and make a law. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4599-6 | null | 1,017 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on Monday, Senate Republicans released a starting proposal for another major pandemic rescue package. This is what we want to do: Continue a Federal supplement to unemployment benefits that is otherwise about to expire; send thousands of dollars more in cash to American families; keep funding the Payroll Protection Program to prevent more layoffs; subsidize rehiring to get laid-off workers their jobs back and create new incentives for workplace safety; give K-12 schools, colleges, and universities funding to reopen safely--more money than the House Democrats have proposed; support healthcare providers in the latest hotspots and keep supporting the race for vaccines; provide commonsense legal protection so that schools, hospitals, and other employers can reopen without being buried in lawsuits. That is what we put forward--a trillion dollars for kids, jobs, and healthcare. It is a framework that is more generous in key areas than House Democrats' totally unserious proposal--a framework that could have kept the additional Federal payments to unemployed workers flowing instead of expiring this week. There is a fact of life here in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to legislate, so the American people cannot get any of the additional relief that Republicans want to give them unless Democrats at least come to the table. Either our Democratic colleagues come to the table or the American people will not get the help they need. That is why I said this week we have come down to one key question: Will the country get the Democrats who showed up back in March to pass the bipartisan CARES Act or will the country get the Democrats who showed up in June to block police reform and keep that issue alive through November? Unfortunately, 3 days in, it hasn't been a close call. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader refuse to let anyone else speak on their side. I understand the Democratic leader has actually forbidden--forbidden his own Democratic ranking members from talking and negotiating with their Republican counterparts who are spearheading the different components. You see, bipartisan, Member-level discussions might actually generate some progress, and progress does not appearto be something the leaders on the other side want. On Monday, the Speaker of the House claimed she could not wait to start negotiations, but then on Tuesday, she said her discussion with the administration ``isn't a negotiation.'' And then the Speaker said: ``The appropriate thing for the Senate to do is pass a bill and then we can negotiate with them.'' Meanwhile, the Democratic leader is over here making sure that cannot happen. This is quite the partnership: the House Speaker moves the goalposts while the Democratic leader hides the football. They will not engage when the Trump administration tries to discuss our comprehensive plan. They will not engage when the Administration floats a narrower proposal. They, basically, will not engage, period. The Speaker and the Democratic leader are playing rope-a-dope with the health, welfare, and livelihoods of American families. With benefits expiring, with the Paycheck Protection Program winding down, and millions unemployed, the Democrats are saying ``my way or the highway'' with a Socialist wish list that was laughed off by everyone from journalists to economists the instant they introduced it. This is what reporters had to say about Speaker Pelosi's proposal in May: ``The more than 1,800-page bill makes a long wish list for Democrats.'' ``Neither this bill nor anything reassembling it will ever become law.'' Even the Speaker's own Democratic Members knew it was a joke. ``Privately, several House Democrats concede the bill feels more like an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Yet this is what they are holding out for. Let's recall some of the specific items. These are the things over which Democrats are blowing up negotiations and forcing a lapse in extra unemployment benefits: tax increase on small businesses; taxpayer-funded checks for illegal immigrants; taxpayer-funded diversity studies of the legal pot industry; and their ongoing obsession with something called the State and local tax, or SALT, which would be a massive giveaway for high earners in blue States. In other words, a tax cut for high earners in blue States. Let me say that again. Democrats are holding up help for struggling people over special tax breaks for rich people in blue States, an idea that has been criticized by economists from all sides. Republicans want to get more help to families right now, but Speaker Pelosi says: Let them eat SALT. They also want to spend another trillion dollars bailing out State and local governments that only spent--listen to this--25 percent of the money we sent them back in March. Some State and local governments have only spent 25 percent of the money we sent them back in March, and the Speaker and Democratic leader want to send them another trillion dollars. This is silly stuff. None of it should be stopping negotiations and none of it would be if our Democratic colleagues actually wanted to get an outcome. Let's talk about unemployment insurance. Both Republicans and Democrats agree in these extraordinary times it makes sense for the Federal Government to provide the stark additional help on top of normal unemployment. Republicans don't want this aid to expire. Our plan continues it, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not agree to anything unless the program pays people more to stay home than to work. Prominent Democrats have publicly said they agree with our position. The Democratic Governor of Connecticut says he wants to continue the benefit at a more targeted level. Multiple Members of the Senate and Speaker Pelosi's own House Democratic Majority Leader have all said in the last few days that they are open to negotiating this, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader have cut all their colleagues out. They are standing alone, saying: ``Our way or the highway.'' And so people are going to suffer. I understand the Democratic leader said he felt offended when I noted that some people are suggesting the Democrats' strange behavior is explained by politics; that some people think Democrats are behaving like national suffering would only hurt President Trump. Now, the Democratic leader, himself, pointed that exact accusation at various Republicans during the Obama Presidency on multiple occasions. I know memories can be short around here when it is convenient. More broadly, actions speak louder than words. Democrats spent weeks shouting that the Senate should act on police reform, but when Senator Tim Scott gave them the chance, they blocked action. They blocked the Senate from even taking up the subject. And now, so far, this is the sequel. Democrats talked a big game about wanting to provide more assistance, but now that it is ``go time,'' they show zero appetite for any bipartisan outcome at all. This is personal for me. Kentucky has not finished fighting with the coronavirus, and the Federal Government must not be finished helping Kentucky. Laid-off Kentuckians need more help. Kentucky schools need more help. Under our proposal, Kentucky alone would receive $193 million for testing and contact tracing to fight the spread of the disease. This should be just as personal for every single Senator. None of our States deserve the Democrats' rope-a-dope. No American family deserves it. Don't my distinguished ranking member colleagues wish they could be involved in robust bipartisan discussions with our chairman, like back in March, and not watching from the sidelines as their leader shuts down talks on TV? Do they really think the Democratic leader's tactics are serving the common good of their States? Republicans have put forward a framework that would do huge amounts of good for huge numbers of American families. If Democrats ever come to the table, we will be able to bridge our differences and make a law. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4599-6 | null | 1,018 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on Monday, Senate Republicans released a starting proposal for another major pandemic rescue package. This is what we want to do: Continue a Federal supplement to unemployment benefits that is otherwise about to expire; send thousands of dollars more in cash to American families; keep funding the Payroll Protection Program to prevent more layoffs; subsidize rehiring to get laid-off workers their jobs back and create new incentives for workplace safety; give K-12 schools, colleges, and universities funding to reopen safely--more money than the House Democrats have proposed; support healthcare providers in the latest hotspots and keep supporting the race for vaccines; provide commonsense legal protection so that schools, hospitals, and other employers can reopen without being buried in lawsuits. That is what we put forward--a trillion dollars for kids, jobs, and healthcare. It is a framework that is more generous in key areas than House Democrats' totally unserious proposal--a framework that could have kept the additional Federal payments to unemployed workers flowing instead of expiring this week. There is a fact of life here in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to legislate, so the American people cannot get any of the additional relief that Republicans want to give them unless Democrats at least come to the table. Either our Democratic colleagues come to the table or the American people will not get the help they need. That is why I said this week we have come down to one key question: Will the country get the Democrats who showed up back in March to pass the bipartisan CARES Act or will the country get the Democrats who showed up in June to block police reform and keep that issue alive through November? Unfortunately, 3 days in, it hasn't been a close call. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader refuse to let anyone else speak on their side. I understand the Democratic leader has actually forbidden--forbidden his own Democratic ranking members from talking and negotiating with their Republican counterparts who are spearheading the different components. You see, bipartisan, Member-level discussions might actually generate some progress, and progress does not appearto be something the leaders on the other side want. On Monday, the Speaker of the House claimed she could not wait to start negotiations, but then on Tuesday, she said her discussion with the administration ``isn't a negotiation.'' And then the Speaker said: ``The appropriate thing for the Senate to do is pass a bill and then we can negotiate with them.'' Meanwhile, the Democratic leader is over here making sure that cannot happen. This is quite the partnership: the House Speaker moves the goalposts while the Democratic leader hides the football. They will not engage when the Trump administration tries to discuss our comprehensive plan. They will not engage when the Administration floats a narrower proposal. They, basically, will not engage, period. The Speaker and the Democratic leader are playing rope-a-dope with the health, welfare, and livelihoods of American families. With benefits expiring, with the Paycheck Protection Program winding down, and millions unemployed, the Democrats are saying ``my way or the highway'' with a Socialist wish list that was laughed off by everyone from journalists to economists the instant they introduced it. This is what reporters had to say about Speaker Pelosi's proposal in May: ``The more than 1,800-page bill makes a long wish list for Democrats.'' ``Neither this bill nor anything reassembling it will ever become law.'' Even the Speaker's own Democratic Members knew it was a joke. ``Privately, several House Democrats concede the bill feels more like an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Yet this is what they are holding out for. Let's recall some of the specific items. These are the things over which Democrats are blowing up negotiations and forcing a lapse in extra unemployment benefits: tax increase on small businesses; taxpayer-funded checks for illegal immigrants; taxpayer-funded diversity studies of the legal pot industry; and their ongoing obsession with something called the State and local tax, or SALT, which would be a massive giveaway for high earners in blue States. In other words, a tax cut for high earners in blue States. Let me say that again. Democrats are holding up help for struggling people over special tax breaks for rich people in blue States, an idea that has been criticized by economists from all sides. Republicans want to get more help to families right now, but Speaker Pelosi says: Let them eat SALT. They also want to spend another trillion dollars bailing out State and local governments that only spent--listen to this--25 percent of the money we sent them back in March. Some State and local governments have only spent 25 percent of the money we sent them back in March, and the Speaker and Democratic leader want to send them another trillion dollars. This is silly stuff. None of it should be stopping negotiations and none of it would be if our Democratic colleagues actually wanted to get an outcome. Let's talk about unemployment insurance. Both Republicans and Democrats agree in these extraordinary times it makes sense for the Federal Government to provide the stark additional help on top of normal unemployment. Republicans don't want this aid to expire. Our plan continues it, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not agree to anything unless the program pays people more to stay home than to work. Prominent Democrats have publicly said they agree with our position. The Democratic Governor of Connecticut says he wants to continue the benefit at a more targeted level. Multiple Members of the Senate and Speaker Pelosi's own House Democratic Majority Leader have all said in the last few days that they are open to negotiating this, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader have cut all their colleagues out. They are standing alone, saying: ``Our way or the highway.'' And so people are going to suffer. I understand the Democratic leader said he felt offended when I noted that some people are suggesting the Democrats' strange behavior is explained by politics; that some people think Democrats are behaving like national suffering would only hurt President Trump. Now, the Democratic leader, himself, pointed that exact accusation at various Republicans during the Obama Presidency on multiple occasions. I know memories can be short around here when it is convenient. More broadly, actions speak louder than words. Democrats spent weeks shouting that the Senate should act on police reform, but when Senator Tim Scott gave them the chance, they blocked action. They blocked the Senate from even taking up the subject. And now, so far, this is the sequel. Democrats talked a big game about wanting to provide more assistance, but now that it is ``go time,'' they show zero appetite for any bipartisan outcome at all. This is personal for me. Kentucky has not finished fighting with the coronavirus, and the Federal Government must not be finished helping Kentucky. Laid-off Kentuckians need more help. Kentucky schools need more help. Under our proposal, Kentucky alone would receive $193 million for testing and contact tracing to fight the spread of the disease. This should be just as personal for every single Senator. None of our States deserve the Democrats' rope-a-dope. No American family deserves it. Don't my distinguished ranking member colleagues wish they could be involved in robust bipartisan discussions with our chairman, like back in March, and not watching from the sidelines as their leader shuts down talks on TV? Do they really think the Democratic leader's tactics are serving the common good of their States? Republicans have put forward a framework that would do huge amounts of good for huge numbers of American families. If Democrats ever come to the table, we will be able to bridge our differences and make a law. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4599-6 | null | 1,019 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on Monday, Senate Republicans released a starting proposal for another major pandemic rescue package. This is what we want to do: Continue a Federal supplement to unemployment benefits that is otherwise about to expire; send thousands of dollars more in cash to American families; keep funding the Payroll Protection Program to prevent more layoffs; subsidize rehiring to get laid-off workers their jobs back and create new incentives for workplace safety; give K-12 schools, colleges, and universities funding to reopen safely--more money than the House Democrats have proposed; support healthcare providers in the latest hotspots and keep supporting the race for vaccines; provide commonsense legal protection so that schools, hospitals, and other employers can reopen without being buried in lawsuits. That is what we put forward--a trillion dollars for kids, jobs, and healthcare. It is a framework that is more generous in key areas than House Democrats' totally unserious proposal--a framework that could have kept the additional Federal payments to unemployed workers flowing instead of expiring this week. There is a fact of life here in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to legislate, so the American people cannot get any of the additional relief that Republicans want to give them unless Democrats at least come to the table. Either our Democratic colleagues come to the table or the American people will not get the help they need. That is why I said this week we have come down to one key question: Will the country get the Democrats who showed up back in March to pass the bipartisan CARES Act or will the country get the Democrats who showed up in June to block police reform and keep that issue alive through November? Unfortunately, 3 days in, it hasn't been a close call. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader refuse to let anyone else speak on their side. I understand the Democratic leader has actually forbidden--forbidden his own Democratic ranking members from talking and negotiating with their Republican counterparts who are spearheading the different components. You see, bipartisan, Member-level discussions might actually generate some progress, and progress does not appearto be something the leaders on the other side want. On Monday, the Speaker of the House claimed she could not wait to start negotiations, but then on Tuesday, she said her discussion with the administration ``isn't a negotiation.'' And then the Speaker said: ``The appropriate thing for the Senate to do is pass a bill and then we can negotiate with them.'' Meanwhile, the Democratic leader is over here making sure that cannot happen. This is quite the partnership: the House Speaker moves the goalposts while the Democratic leader hides the football. They will not engage when the Trump administration tries to discuss our comprehensive plan. They will not engage when the Administration floats a narrower proposal. They, basically, will not engage, period. The Speaker and the Democratic leader are playing rope-a-dope with the health, welfare, and livelihoods of American families. With benefits expiring, with the Paycheck Protection Program winding down, and millions unemployed, the Democrats are saying ``my way or the highway'' with a Socialist wish list that was laughed off by everyone from journalists to economists the instant they introduced it. This is what reporters had to say about Speaker Pelosi's proposal in May: ``The more than 1,800-page bill makes a long wish list for Democrats.'' ``Neither this bill nor anything reassembling it will ever become law.'' Even the Speaker's own Democratic Members knew it was a joke. ``Privately, several House Democrats concede the bill feels more like an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Yet this is what they are holding out for. Let's recall some of the specific items. These are the things over which Democrats are blowing up negotiations and forcing a lapse in extra unemployment benefits: tax increase on small businesses; taxpayer-funded checks for illegal immigrants; taxpayer-funded diversity studies of the legal pot industry; and their ongoing obsession with something called the State and local tax, or SALT, which would be a massive giveaway for high earners in blue States. In other words, a tax cut for high earners in blue States. Let me say that again. Democrats are holding up help for struggling people over special tax breaks for rich people in blue States, an idea that has been criticized by economists from all sides. Republicans want to get more help to families right now, but Speaker Pelosi says: Let them eat SALT. They also want to spend another trillion dollars bailing out State and local governments that only spent--listen to this--25 percent of the money we sent them back in March. Some State and local governments have only spent 25 percent of the money we sent them back in March, and the Speaker and Democratic leader want to send them another trillion dollars. This is silly stuff. None of it should be stopping negotiations and none of it would be if our Democratic colleagues actually wanted to get an outcome. Let's talk about unemployment insurance. Both Republicans and Democrats agree in these extraordinary times it makes sense for the Federal Government to provide the stark additional help on top of normal unemployment. Republicans don't want this aid to expire. Our plan continues it, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not agree to anything unless the program pays people more to stay home than to work. Prominent Democrats have publicly said they agree with our position. The Democratic Governor of Connecticut says he wants to continue the benefit at a more targeted level. Multiple Members of the Senate and Speaker Pelosi's own House Democratic Majority Leader have all said in the last few days that they are open to negotiating this, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader have cut all their colleagues out. They are standing alone, saying: ``Our way or the highway.'' And so people are going to suffer. I understand the Democratic leader said he felt offended when I noted that some people are suggesting the Democrats' strange behavior is explained by politics; that some people think Democrats are behaving like national suffering would only hurt President Trump. Now, the Democratic leader, himself, pointed that exact accusation at various Republicans during the Obama Presidency on multiple occasions. I know memories can be short around here when it is convenient. More broadly, actions speak louder than words. Democrats spent weeks shouting that the Senate should act on police reform, but when Senator Tim Scott gave them the chance, they blocked action. They blocked the Senate from even taking up the subject. And now, so far, this is the sequel. Democrats talked a big game about wanting to provide more assistance, but now that it is ``go time,'' they show zero appetite for any bipartisan outcome at all. This is personal for me. Kentucky has not finished fighting with the coronavirus, and the Federal Government must not be finished helping Kentucky. Laid-off Kentuckians need more help. Kentucky schools need more help. Under our proposal, Kentucky alone would receive $193 million for testing and contact tracing to fight the spread of the disease. This should be just as personal for every single Senator. None of our States deserve the Democrats' rope-a-dope. No American family deserves it. Don't my distinguished ranking member colleagues wish they could be involved in robust bipartisan discussions with our chairman, like back in March, and not watching from the sidelines as their leader shuts down talks on TV? Do they really think the Democratic leader's tactics are serving the common good of their States? Republicans have put forward a framework that would do huge amounts of good for huge numbers of American families. If Democrats ever come to the table, we will be able to bridge our differences and make a law. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4599-6 | null | 1,020 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on Monday, Senate Republicans released a starting proposal for another major pandemic rescue package. This is what we want to do: Continue a Federal supplement to unemployment benefits that is otherwise about to expire; send thousands of dollars more in cash to American families; keep funding the Payroll Protection Program to prevent more layoffs; subsidize rehiring to get laid-off workers their jobs back and create new incentives for workplace safety; give K-12 schools, colleges, and universities funding to reopen safely--more money than the House Democrats have proposed; support healthcare providers in the latest hotspots and keep supporting the race for vaccines; provide commonsense legal protection so that schools, hospitals, and other employers can reopen without being buried in lawsuits. That is what we put forward--a trillion dollars for kids, jobs, and healthcare. It is a framework that is more generous in key areas than House Democrats' totally unserious proposal--a framework that could have kept the additional Federal payments to unemployed workers flowing instead of expiring this week. There is a fact of life here in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to legislate, so the American people cannot get any of the additional relief that Republicans want to give them unless Democrats at least come to the table. Either our Democratic colleagues come to the table or the American people will not get the help they need. That is why I said this week we have come down to one key question: Will the country get the Democrats who showed up back in March to pass the bipartisan CARES Act or will the country get the Democrats who showed up in June to block police reform and keep that issue alive through November? Unfortunately, 3 days in, it hasn't been a close call. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader refuse to let anyone else speak on their side. I understand the Democratic leader has actually forbidden--forbidden his own Democratic ranking members from talking and negotiating with their Republican counterparts who are spearheading the different components. You see, bipartisan, Member-level discussions might actually generate some progress, and progress does not appearto be something the leaders on the other side want. On Monday, the Speaker of the House claimed she could not wait to start negotiations, but then on Tuesday, she said her discussion with the administration ``isn't a negotiation.'' And then the Speaker said: ``The appropriate thing for the Senate to do is pass a bill and then we can negotiate with them.'' Meanwhile, the Democratic leader is over here making sure that cannot happen. This is quite the partnership: the House Speaker moves the goalposts while the Democratic leader hides the football. They will not engage when the Trump administration tries to discuss our comprehensive plan. They will not engage when the Administration floats a narrower proposal. They, basically, will not engage, period. The Speaker and the Democratic leader are playing rope-a-dope with the health, welfare, and livelihoods of American families. With benefits expiring, with the Paycheck Protection Program winding down, and millions unemployed, the Democrats are saying ``my way or the highway'' with a Socialist wish list that was laughed off by everyone from journalists to economists the instant they introduced it. This is what reporters had to say about Speaker Pelosi's proposal in May: ``The more than 1,800-page bill makes a long wish list for Democrats.'' ``Neither this bill nor anything reassembling it will ever become law.'' Even the Speaker's own Democratic Members knew it was a joke. ``Privately, several House Democrats concede the bill feels more like an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Yet this is what they are holding out for. Let's recall some of the specific items. These are the things over which Democrats are blowing up negotiations and forcing a lapse in extra unemployment benefits: tax increase on small businesses; taxpayer-funded checks for illegal immigrants; taxpayer-funded diversity studies of the legal pot industry; and their ongoing obsession with something called the State and local tax, or SALT, which would be a massive giveaway for high earners in blue States. In other words, a tax cut for high earners in blue States. Let me say that again. Democrats are holding up help for struggling people over special tax breaks for rich people in blue States, an idea that has been criticized by economists from all sides. Republicans want to get more help to families right now, but Speaker Pelosi says: Let them eat SALT. They also want to spend another trillion dollars bailing out State and local governments that only spent--listen to this--25 percent of the money we sent them back in March. Some State and local governments have only spent 25 percent of the money we sent them back in March, and the Speaker and Democratic leader want to send them another trillion dollars. This is silly stuff. None of it should be stopping negotiations and none of it would be if our Democratic colleagues actually wanted to get an outcome. Let's talk about unemployment insurance. Both Republicans and Democrats agree in these extraordinary times it makes sense for the Federal Government to provide the stark additional help on top of normal unemployment. Republicans don't want this aid to expire. Our plan continues it, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not agree to anything unless the program pays people more to stay home than to work. Prominent Democrats have publicly said they agree with our position. The Democratic Governor of Connecticut says he wants to continue the benefit at a more targeted level. Multiple Members of the Senate and Speaker Pelosi's own House Democratic Majority Leader have all said in the last few days that they are open to negotiating this, but the Speaker and the Democratic leader have cut all their colleagues out. They are standing alone, saying: ``Our way or the highway.'' And so people are going to suffer. I understand the Democratic leader said he felt offended when I noted that some people are suggesting the Democrats' strange behavior is explained by politics; that some people think Democrats are behaving like national suffering would only hurt President Trump. Now, the Democratic leader, himself, pointed that exact accusation at various Republicans during the Obama Presidency on multiple occasions. I know memories can be short around here when it is convenient. More broadly, actions speak louder than words. Democrats spent weeks shouting that the Senate should act on police reform, but when Senator Tim Scott gave them the chance, they blocked action. They blocked the Senate from even taking up the subject. And now, so far, this is the sequel. Democrats talked a big game about wanting to provide more assistance, but now that it is ``go time,'' they show zero appetite for any bipartisan outcome at all. This is personal for me. Kentucky has not finished fighting with the coronavirus, and the Federal Government must not be finished helping Kentucky. Laid-off Kentuckians need more help. Kentucky schools need more help. Under our proposal, Kentucky alone would receive $193 million for testing and contact tracing to fight the spread of the disease. This should be just as personal for every single Senator. None of our States deserve the Democrats' rope-a-dope. No American family deserves it. Don't my distinguished ranking member colleagues wish they could be involved in robust bipartisan discussions with our chairman, like back in March, and not watching from the sidelines as their leader shuts down talks on TV? Do they really think the Democratic leader's tactics are serving the common good of their States? Republicans have put forward a framework that would do huge amounts of good for huge numbers of American families. If Democrats ever come to the table, we will be able to bridge our differences and make a law. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4599-6 | null | 1,021 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Coronavirus Madam President, as COVID-19 continues to spread through dozens of States, our country is dealing with multiple crises at this time. We learned today that the most recent quarter was the worst on record for our economy. The problem is not new or surprising. Millions of newly unemployed Americans cannot go back to work, cannot afford the rent, cannot put food on the table. Small businesses are waiting to see if the Federal loan program that kept them alive will be renewed. Parents are worried sick about their kids returning to school in the fall. The State and local governments that fought this disease on the frontline when the Trump administration refused to give them help are deep in the red and are slashing public services, teachers, firefighters, and more. Throughout America, people wait days and days--even weeks--for the results of their tests, which renders the tests almost useless because we don't have an adequate testing program at the national level. This is the greatest public health challenge and crisis and the greatest economic challenge in at least 75 years. We need to confront all of these crises. Senate Republicans hardly want to address any of them. They dithered for months and then produced a half-baked, halfhearted proposal of half measures--a proposal that their own caucus and their own President didn't fully support. Just last night, the Republican leader confirmed that 20 Republican Senators want to do nothing in the face of the historic problems we face, and because the Senate Republicans haven't gotten their act together, 2 weeks have now gone down the drain and 3 months went down the drain before that because the Republicans have been wedded to a twisted ideology that the Federal Government shouldn't help people even in a time of national emergency. As the country is about to careen over several cliffs as a result of Republican delay, dithering, and disunity, our friends on the other side are now scrambling. It is dawning on them now--not a week ago, not 3 weeks ago, not 2 months ago--that we are facing a cliff with unemployment--although we face cliffs on other issues, as well, right now. I understand that, today, a few of my colleagues on the other side will ask the Senate to pass a reduction of the enhanced employment benefit from $600 a week to $200 a week or, even worse, a smaller percentage of a worker's wages than the Republicans proposed in their bill earlier this week. An already stingy Republican proposal has gotten even stingier as the week has gone on. I have made it very clear why the proposal by the Senator of Wisconsin is terrible policy for four main reasons. First and most obviously, it would hurt the unemployed as 1.4 million Americans filed new claims for unemployment last week, and the number is going up again. Our economy is still shedding jobs, and Americans are losing their paychecks through no fault of their own. Yet the Republicans want to take $1,600 out of their pockets every single month. They want to give people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own a 34-percent pay cut. It is shocking, inhumane, wrong. Second, it would exacerbate poverty. Our enhanced unemployment benefits have prevented nearly 12 million Americans from slipping into poverty. The Republicans want to slash and burn that poverty-preventing policy. Let's have more people go into poverty. That is what this amendment would do. Third, it would devastate our economy. One of the few bright spots over the past few months has been consumer spending, in no small part because these unemployment benefits go to those Americans who need to spend them as soon as they get them. No wonder respected economic forecasters project that the Republican policy on unemployment insurance would cost us over a million jobs this year and 3 million more next year. Finally, we know that this policy is impossible to implement. When our office called State unemployment offices to ask them about the Republican proposal, they said its implementation would be a catastrophe. One office simply said: ``This would cause chaos.'' This is not a serious proposal. We all know it will never pass the House and that it doesn't have enough votes to come close to passing in the Senate. Large numbers of Republicans will vote against it. This effort appears to be an effort to provide the Republicans some political cover because they can't get their act together and force the country over these cliffs. We are trying to negotiate with the White House and would welcome negotiations with our Senate colleagues, but the reason negotiations are going nowhere right now is that the Republicans are divided. Who is leading the effort on the Republican side--Chief of Staff Meadows and Secretary Mnuchin? Is Senator Johnson and Senator Braun's effort to pass reduced unemployment benefits a real offer from the Republicans or just a stunt? Leader McConnell has said that the Democrats will not engage. I would remind him that he refuses to go into the room when Speaker Pelosi, Secretary Mnuchin, Chief of Staff Meadows, and I sit in there. Once again, Senator McConnell engages in ``Alice in Wonderland'' tactics and speeches and words. What he says is exactly the opposite of what is true. We are trying to negotiate, and the Senate Republicans are not. Next, it is clear that the Senate Republicans don't have a unified position on anything. The main thing we hear from Leader McConnell is that he would torpedo all of the relief that the Americans are counting on unless there is a giant corporate immunity provision attached, and he says he will not even negotiate on it. Who is holding things up? Who is standing in the way? Leader McConnell and his Republican caucus are, certainly, at the top of the list. And President Trump is all over the lot. He himself called the Republican Senate proposal ``semi-irrelevant.'' When your own President says your proposal is semi-irrelevant, as Trump has said to the Senate Republicans, you know that they are tied in a knot and can't get anything done. The President seems to endorse a different policy every time he finds a microphone. The one thing we are sure he supports is spending taxpayer dollars on a new FBI building to boost the value of his hotel. Yesterday, we learned the President asked for nearly $400 million in renovations to the White House in the Republican COVID proposal. Seriously? The President proposes no help for Americans to stay in their houses but wants the taxpayers to fork over nearly $400 million to help him renovate the White House? Simply put, negotiations with the White House and Senate Republicans right now are like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. We are trying to work with our counterparts, but it is immensely frustrating to deal with a negotiating partner who can't say what they support on nearly any issue. Now, we are hearing the President and his representatives have floated the idea of a skinny bill to address one program, to extend unemployment insurance at much lower rates, which hurts the unemployed. But while the Nation waits, desperate for comprehensive relief, they leave everything else out. What about improving testing, where people have to wait in line--wait for hours, days, and weeks to get theirtests back? What about helping State and local governments, who have to lay off firefighters and busdrivers? What about dealing with people who might be evicted? What about dealing with people who can't feed their kids? The list of issues goes on and on and on, and they are all immediate and urgent. So to have this bill, which is inadequate on employment benefits alone--cuts them to the bone--and not include any of the other issues, in a hope to escape and then do nothing more? Forget it. It will not pass the Senate. It will not pass the House. It is a stunt. Even if the White House would agree to another extension of enhanced unemployment at its current level, which many, if not most, Senate Republicans will refuse to support, there are just too many things left out--opening up our schools safely, healthcare testing and reducing the wait to get test results, State and local governments, so much more. And even if the White House finally comes around to the position that we should extend the moratorium on evictions, that wouldn't be enough. It makes no sense to extend the moratorium on evictions without helping Americans actually afford the rent. We can prevent landlords or banks from kicking Americans out of their homes for another few months, but then what? The same Americans would be 6 months behind on the rent and have no hope of making up the difference. So let's look. Here is where we are. Americans are worried as this awful pandemic rages on. The lifelines we passed here in Congress to protect families, small businesses, renters, school kids, and so many more are expired, and our Republican colleagues dither. We have a comprehensive, bold proposal. They have virtually nothing. Let's remember recent history. That may give us some hope that we can get something done. Back in March and April, Republicans were late to the game, just as they are now, and proposed stingy, insufficient legislation in response to COVID-19, just like they are doing now. Each time, Democrats were not bullied by Republicans into passing something that wouldn't work and be insufficient, but we demanded that our colleagues sit down with us and negotiate a bill that meets the needs of the American people--and that is what we did. In the second, third, and fourth phases of COVID relief, our negotiations produced much better legislation--legislation that passed both Houses with near unanimity. It is never easy, and it is never painless, but it can be done. We just need our Republican colleagues to get their act together, roll up their sleeves, understand the gravity and breadth and depth of this problem and negotiate with us in a serious way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4601 | null | 1,022 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Coronavirus Madam President, as COVID-19 continues to spread through dozens of States, our country is dealing with multiple crises at this time. We learned today that the most recent quarter was the worst on record for our economy. The problem is not new or surprising. Millions of newly unemployed Americans cannot go back to work, cannot afford the rent, cannot put food on the table. Small businesses are waiting to see if the Federal loan program that kept them alive will be renewed. Parents are worried sick about their kids returning to school in the fall. The State and local governments that fought this disease on the frontline when the Trump administration refused to give them help are deep in the red and are slashing public services, teachers, firefighters, and more. Throughout America, people wait days and days--even weeks--for the results of their tests, which renders the tests almost useless because we don't have an adequate testing program at the national level. This is the greatest public health challenge and crisis and the greatest economic challenge in at least 75 years. We need to confront all of these crises. Senate Republicans hardly want to address any of them. They dithered for months and then produced a half-baked, halfhearted proposal of half measures--a proposal that their own caucus and their own President didn't fully support. Just last night, the Republican leader confirmed that 20 Republican Senators want to do nothing in the face of the historic problems we face, and because the Senate Republicans haven't gotten their act together, 2 weeks have now gone down the drain and 3 months went down the drain before that because the Republicans have been wedded to a twisted ideology that the Federal Government shouldn't help people even in a time of national emergency. As the country is about to careen over several cliffs as a result of Republican delay, dithering, and disunity, our friends on the other side are now scrambling. It is dawning on them now--not a week ago, not 3 weeks ago, not 2 months ago--that we are facing a cliff with unemployment--although we face cliffs on other issues, as well, right now. I understand that, today, a few of my colleagues on the other side will ask the Senate to pass a reduction of the enhanced employment benefit from $600 a week to $200 a week or, even worse, a smaller percentage of a worker's wages than the Republicans proposed in their bill earlier this week. An already stingy Republican proposal has gotten even stingier as the week has gone on. I have made it very clear why the proposal by the Senator of Wisconsin is terrible policy for four main reasons. First and most obviously, it would hurt the unemployed as 1.4 million Americans filed new claims for unemployment last week, and the number is going up again. Our economy is still shedding jobs, and Americans are losing their paychecks through no fault of their own. Yet the Republicans want to take $1,600 out of their pockets every single month. They want to give people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own a 34-percent pay cut. It is shocking, inhumane, wrong. Second, it would exacerbate poverty. Our enhanced unemployment benefits have prevented nearly 12 million Americans from slipping into poverty. The Republicans want to slash and burn that poverty-preventing policy. Let's have more people go into poverty. That is what this amendment would do. Third, it would devastate our economy. One of the few bright spots over the past few months has been consumer spending, in no small part because these unemployment benefits go to those Americans who need to spend them as soon as they get them. No wonder respected economic forecasters project that the Republican policy on unemployment insurance would cost us over a million jobs this year and 3 million more next year. Finally, we know that this policy is impossible to implement. When our office called State unemployment offices to ask them about the Republican proposal, they said its implementation would be a catastrophe. One office simply said: ``This would cause chaos.'' This is not a serious proposal. We all know it will never pass the House and that it doesn't have enough votes to come close to passing in the Senate. Large numbers of Republicans will vote against it. This effort appears to be an effort to provide the Republicans some political cover because they can't get their act together and force the country over these cliffs. We are trying to negotiate with the White House and would welcome negotiations with our Senate colleagues, but the reason negotiations are going nowhere right now is that the Republicans are divided. Who is leading the effort on the Republican side--Chief of Staff Meadows and Secretary Mnuchin? Is Senator Johnson and Senator Braun's effort to pass reduced unemployment benefits a real offer from the Republicans or just a stunt? Leader McConnell has said that the Democrats will not engage. I would remind him that he refuses to go into the room when Speaker Pelosi, Secretary Mnuchin, Chief of Staff Meadows, and I sit in there. Once again, Senator McConnell engages in ``Alice in Wonderland'' tactics and speeches and words. What he says is exactly the opposite of what is true. We are trying to negotiate, and the Senate Republicans are not. Next, it is clear that the Senate Republicans don't have a unified position on anything. The main thing we hear from Leader McConnell is that he would torpedo all of the relief that the Americans are counting on unless there is a giant corporate immunity provision attached, and he says he will not even negotiate on it. Who is holding things up? Who is standing in the way? Leader McConnell and his Republican caucus are, certainly, at the top of the list. And President Trump is all over the lot. He himself called the Republican Senate proposal ``semi-irrelevant.'' When your own President says your proposal is semi-irrelevant, as Trump has said to the Senate Republicans, you know that they are tied in a knot and can't get anything done. The President seems to endorse a different policy every time he finds a microphone. The one thing we are sure he supports is spending taxpayer dollars on a new FBI building to boost the value of his hotel. Yesterday, we learned the President asked for nearly $400 million in renovations to the White House in the Republican COVID proposal. Seriously? The President proposes no help for Americans to stay in their houses but wants the taxpayers to fork over nearly $400 million to help him renovate the White House? Simply put, negotiations with the White House and Senate Republicans right now are like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. We are trying to work with our counterparts, but it is immensely frustrating to deal with a negotiating partner who can't say what they support on nearly any issue. Now, we are hearing the President and his representatives have floated the idea of a skinny bill to address one program, to extend unemployment insurance at much lower rates, which hurts the unemployed. But while the Nation waits, desperate for comprehensive relief, they leave everything else out. What about improving testing, where people have to wait in line--wait for hours, days, and weeks to get theirtests back? What about helping State and local governments, who have to lay off firefighters and busdrivers? What about dealing with people who might be evicted? What about dealing with people who can't feed their kids? The list of issues goes on and on and on, and they are all immediate and urgent. So to have this bill, which is inadequate on employment benefits alone--cuts them to the bone--and not include any of the other issues, in a hope to escape and then do nothing more? Forget it. It will not pass the Senate. It will not pass the House. It is a stunt. Even if the White House would agree to another extension of enhanced unemployment at its current level, which many, if not most, Senate Republicans will refuse to support, there are just too many things left out--opening up our schools safely, healthcare testing and reducing the wait to get test results, State and local governments, so much more. And even if the White House finally comes around to the position that we should extend the moratorium on evictions, that wouldn't be enough. It makes no sense to extend the moratorium on evictions without helping Americans actually afford the rent. We can prevent landlords or banks from kicking Americans out of their homes for another few months, but then what? The same Americans would be 6 months behind on the rent and have no hope of making up the difference. So let's look. Here is where we are. Americans are worried as this awful pandemic rages on. The lifelines we passed here in Congress to protect families, small businesses, renters, school kids, and so many more are expired, and our Republican colleagues dither. We have a comprehensive, bold proposal. They have virtually nothing. Let's remember recent history. That may give us some hope that we can get something done. Back in March and April, Republicans were late to the game, just as they are now, and proposed stingy, insufficient legislation in response to COVID-19, just like they are doing now. Each time, Democrats were not bullied by Republicans into passing something that wouldn't work and be insufficient, but we demanded that our colleagues sit down with us and negotiate a bill that meets the needs of the American people--and that is what we did. In the second, third, and fourth phases of COVID relief, our negotiations produced much better legislation--legislation that passed both Houses with near unanimity. It is never easy, and it is never painless, but it can be done. We just need our Republican colleagues to get their act together, roll up their sleeves, understand the gravity and breadth and depth of this problem and negotiate with us in a serious way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4601 | null | 1,023 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Whistleblowers Mr. President, now I speak about an issue that each day, each year, every year for I don't know how many years I have spoken on this subject, but you will soon find out why this is an important day to me, as an advocate for whistleblowing and the protection of whistleblowers. Earlier this month, the Senate unanimously declared today National Whistleblower Appreciation Day. Every year, we honor whistleblowers on July 30, and I want to tell you the history of that. It was on July 30, 1778--I hope you heard that right: July 30, 1778--at the height of the American Revolutionary war that the Continental Congress passed the first whistleblower law. It did so in support of American soldiers who had decided to blow the whistle on their supervisor. That supervisor was an American naval commander. It seems this commander had not been following the rules of war and had been brutally torturing British soldiers. Knowing his actions were against the Navy's code of ethics, the soldiers decided to blow the whistle to Congress. When they did blow that whistle, they got the full whistleblower treatment, the kind that I hear too often, even today. They were sued for libel and were thrown into jail. Now, that doesn't happen to maybe a lot of whistleblowers in 2020, but whistleblowers are not treated correctly yet today. Well, Congress wasn't hearing of how they were being treated by being sued for libel and being thrown into jail. In response to what had happened on July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress passed the first whistleblower law, stating its unequivocal support for the soldiers and affirming that it is the duty of every person in the country--not just government employees but every single person--to report wrongdoing to the proper authorities. Congress even covered the legal fees of the jailed sailors. Now, 242 years later, we find ourselves in the midst of another crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and today Congress and the American people depend on whistleblowers to tell us about wrongdoing just as much as our Founding Fathers did. In fact, we depend on them more because, as the government gets bigger, the potential for fraud and abuse, at the same time, gets bigger. So does the potential for cruel retaliation against our Nation's brave truthtellers. But here is the good news: For every rogue commander or manager, this country is filled with good, honest, hard-working people like those sailors--patriots--who are unafraid to step forward and blow the whistle just for a simple reason--to do the right thing, to get the government to do what the laws require, spend money according to how the law requires the money be spent. I can think of no better way of remembering and honoring the whistleblowers than doing exactly as the Continental Congress did on that day in 1778: by renewing our resolve and our commitment here and now to pass laws that encourage, support, and protect whistleblowers; by telling whistleblowers through strong legislative action that they are patriots and that Congress and the American people have their backs. I myself have several critical whistleblower bills pending before this session of Congress that are especially crucial in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. First and foremost, there is the legislation I have been working on to strengthen the False Claims Act. As we all know, the False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to file lawsuits and sue fraudsters on behalf of the Federal Government. The Federal Government should be doing that, but the Federal Government may not know about it. Or if the Federal Government does know about it, they may have so many cases they can't deal with. So we allow the citizens, through qui tam-type lawsuits, to act in the place of the government. This is what my amendments in 1986 to the False Claims Act did. Those cases, since 1996, have brought $62 billion back into the Federal Treasury. The False Claims Act has never been more important than it is right now this very year--34 years after I got it passed. That is because the massive increase on government funding to address the COVID-19 crisis has created new opportunities for fraudsters trying to cheat the government and steal hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. I heard some of this on Tuesday in my committee from people in Homeland Security who have been running down, either costing the taxpayers money or just receiving bad quality products to protect our healthcare people. It is especially ironic, considering all of this, that the Department of Justice has been continuing its recent practice of dismissing charges in many of the false claims cases brought by whistleblowers without the Department of Justice even stating its reasons. This is definitely not the right approach. If there are serious allegations of fraud against the government, the Attorney General should have to state the legitimate reasons for deciding not to pursue them in court. That is just common sense. My legislation clarifies the ambiguities created by the courts and reins in this practice that undermines the purpose of my 1996 amendments to the False Claims Act, which was to empower whistleblowers. And remember, you shouldn't weaken a piece of legislation that has brought $62 billion of fraudulently taken money back into the Federal Treasury. This legislation requires the Justice Department to state its reasons. What is wrong with telling people why you are dropping the case and provide whistleblowers who bring the cases an opportunity to be heard whenever it decides to drop a false claims case? These problems I am bringing up with the Department of Justice remind me of the initial carrying out of the false claims amendments that I got passed in 1986. The Department of Justice resented some citizen coming in and being able to go to court and get justice for the taxpayers because it made it look like the Department of Justice wasn't doing its job. So what? We are helping the taxpayers. We are enforcing the law. I thought around 1992 or 1993 that they got over it and moved ahead with it. But even yet in 1992, Attorney General Barr, then--and I don't know whether he was Attorney General then or just a citizen--even claimed that the False Claims Act's amendments I got passed were unconstitutional. By the time he got 30 years later, coming back into government--and my questioning him about it--he did say that he felt that the False Claims Act was constitutional. That is big progress from 1992, when you thought it was unconstitutional. We still seem to have some problems with the Justice Department, but this bill should not be necessary, but I have to pursue it anyway at the present time Mr. President, on another matter, during the pandemic, there has also been a dramatic increase in whistleblower complaints filed with the SEC. Whistleblowers have been calling attention to scam artists peddling counterfeit and substandard medical goods and phony cures to the consumers. The Whistleblower Programs Improvement Act, which I introduced last year, strengthens protections for SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission whistleblowers. It requires the SEC and CFTC to make timely decisions regarding whistleblower rewards. We are now waiting for the Senate Banking Committee to sign off on the SEC portions of the bill, which the SEC supports. I just had a conversation with the chairman of the SEC on this very point within the last hour. I am also working on legislation that will provide timely, critical protection to whistleblowers working in our nation's law enforcement agencies. Of course, I have been having a national conversation--we all have been having a national conversation lately--about the role of law enforcement in our country. I firmly believe that law enforcement officers play a critical role in maintaining our system of justice. They are there to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens and never, of course, to do harm or infringe upon those constitutional rights. For decades, it has been unlawful for law enforcement officers to work on any level to infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans. And whenever the Attorney General has cause to believe law enforcement is overstepping its bounds and infringing on those rights, he has the legal authority to intervene and pursue action on behalf of the United States to stop the practice and hold those responsible accountable. Of course, the Attorney General can't prosecute what he doesn't know about. It is law enforcement officers themselves who are out there on the frontlines protecting all of us. Congress and the American people depend on them to be vigilant and to speak up if they see something happening that they know is wrong. Those who do choose to step forward and report violations in accordance with our Federal laws deserve Federal whistleblower protections. That is why I am working to ensure that law enforcement whistleblowers who report violations of the constitutional rights of American citizens to Congress and the Justice Department are guaranteed simple whistleblower protections, which we give to a lot of other people. Another whistleblower bill currently awaiting passage is my Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation strengthens protections for private sector whistleblowers who report violations of antitrust laws. The bill was passed by the Senate last October and has been pending before the House of Representatives ever since. The House tries to argue that the Senate is the legislative graveyard. Wehear that from people across the Rotunda on almost anything and any day. But here is a case where its delayed action on this bill suggests that it isn't always the Senate that isn't considering this legislation. Each of these bills fills a critical void in our current whistleblower laws, and each one ought to receive consideration and an up-or-down vote before the end of this Congress. Of course, if that is going to happen, Congress needs to pick up its pace. It needs to take a cue from those strong actions taken by the Congress--the Continental Congress, let me emphasize, during the American Revolution, a body that saw the need, took the time, and devoted necessary resources to stand up for whistleblowers in the midst of a war for the very existence of our country. Today, let's all take a moment to reflect on the high standards that those early Americans set for us back on July 30, 1778, and let's remember never to let excuses or partisan differences keep us from pursuing our common interests in passing strong, meaningful whistleblower laws. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4605-2 | null | 1,024 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Whistleblowers Mr. President, now I speak about an issue that each day, each year, every year for I don't know how many years I have spoken on this subject, but you will soon find out why this is an important day to me, as an advocate for whistleblowing and the protection of whistleblowers. Earlier this month, the Senate unanimously declared today National Whistleblower Appreciation Day. Every year, we honor whistleblowers on July 30, and I want to tell you the history of that. It was on July 30, 1778--I hope you heard that right: July 30, 1778--at the height of the American Revolutionary war that the Continental Congress passed the first whistleblower law. It did so in support of American soldiers who had decided to blow the whistle on their supervisor. That supervisor was an American naval commander. It seems this commander had not been following the rules of war and had been brutally torturing British soldiers. Knowing his actions were against the Navy's code of ethics, the soldiers decided to blow the whistle to Congress. When they did blow that whistle, they got the full whistleblower treatment, the kind that I hear too often, even today. They were sued for libel and were thrown into jail. Now, that doesn't happen to maybe a lot of whistleblowers in 2020, but whistleblowers are not treated correctly yet today. Well, Congress wasn't hearing of how they were being treated by being sued for libel and being thrown into jail. In response to what had happened on July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress passed the first whistleblower law, stating its unequivocal support for the soldiers and affirming that it is the duty of every person in the country--not just government employees but every single person--to report wrongdoing to the proper authorities. Congress even covered the legal fees of the jailed sailors. Now, 242 years later, we find ourselves in the midst of another crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and today Congress and the American people depend on whistleblowers to tell us about wrongdoing just as much as our Founding Fathers did. In fact, we depend on them more because, as the government gets bigger, the potential for fraud and abuse, at the same time, gets bigger. So does the potential for cruel retaliation against our Nation's brave truthtellers. But here is the good news: For every rogue commander or manager, this country is filled with good, honest, hard-working people like those sailors--patriots--who are unafraid to step forward and blow the whistle just for a simple reason--to do the right thing, to get the government to do what the laws require, spend money according to how the law requires the money be spent. I can think of no better way of remembering and honoring the whistleblowers than doing exactly as the Continental Congress did on that day in 1778: by renewing our resolve and our commitment here and now to pass laws that encourage, support, and protect whistleblowers; by telling whistleblowers through strong legislative action that they are patriots and that Congress and the American people have their backs. I myself have several critical whistleblower bills pending before this session of Congress that are especially crucial in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. First and foremost, there is the legislation I have been working on to strengthen the False Claims Act. As we all know, the False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to file lawsuits and sue fraudsters on behalf of the Federal Government. The Federal Government should be doing that, but the Federal Government may not know about it. Or if the Federal Government does know about it, they may have so many cases they can't deal with. So we allow the citizens, through qui tam-type lawsuits, to act in the place of the government. This is what my amendments in 1986 to the False Claims Act did. Those cases, since 1996, have brought $62 billion back into the Federal Treasury. The False Claims Act has never been more important than it is right now this very year--34 years after I got it passed. That is because the massive increase on government funding to address the COVID-19 crisis has created new opportunities for fraudsters trying to cheat the government and steal hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. I heard some of this on Tuesday in my committee from people in Homeland Security who have been running down, either costing the taxpayers money or just receiving bad quality products to protect our healthcare people. It is especially ironic, considering all of this, that the Department of Justice has been continuing its recent practice of dismissing charges in many of the false claims cases brought by whistleblowers without the Department of Justice even stating its reasons. This is definitely not the right approach. If there are serious allegations of fraud against the government, the Attorney General should have to state the legitimate reasons for deciding not to pursue them in court. That is just common sense. My legislation clarifies the ambiguities created by the courts and reins in this practice that undermines the purpose of my 1996 amendments to the False Claims Act, which was to empower whistleblowers. And remember, you shouldn't weaken a piece of legislation that has brought $62 billion of fraudulently taken money back into the Federal Treasury. This legislation requires the Justice Department to state its reasons. What is wrong with telling people why you are dropping the case and provide whistleblowers who bring the cases an opportunity to be heard whenever it decides to drop a false claims case? These problems I am bringing up with the Department of Justice remind me of the initial carrying out of the false claims amendments that I got passed in 1986. The Department of Justice resented some citizen coming in and being able to go to court and get justice for the taxpayers because it made it look like the Department of Justice wasn't doing its job. So what? We are helping the taxpayers. We are enforcing the law. I thought around 1992 or 1993 that they got over it and moved ahead with it. But even yet in 1992, Attorney General Barr, then--and I don't know whether he was Attorney General then or just a citizen--even claimed that the False Claims Act's amendments I got passed were unconstitutional. By the time he got 30 years later, coming back into government--and my questioning him about it--he did say that he felt that the False Claims Act was constitutional. That is big progress from 1992, when you thought it was unconstitutional. We still seem to have some problems with the Justice Department, but this bill should not be necessary, but I have to pursue it anyway at the present time Mr. President, on another matter, during the pandemic, there has also been a dramatic increase in whistleblower complaints filed with the SEC. Whistleblowers have been calling attention to scam artists peddling counterfeit and substandard medical goods and phony cures to the consumers. The Whistleblower Programs Improvement Act, which I introduced last year, strengthens protections for SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission whistleblowers. It requires the SEC and CFTC to make timely decisions regarding whistleblower rewards. We are now waiting for the Senate Banking Committee to sign off on the SEC portions of the bill, which the SEC supports. I just had a conversation with the chairman of the SEC on this very point within the last hour. I am also working on legislation that will provide timely, critical protection to whistleblowers working in our nation's law enforcement agencies. Of course, I have been having a national conversation--we all have been having a national conversation lately--about the role of law enforcement in our country. I firmly believe that law enforcement officers play a critical role in maintaining our system of justice. They are there to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens and never, of course, to do harm or infringe upon those constitutional rights. For decades, it has been unlawful for law enforcement officers to work on any level to infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans. And whenever the Attorney General has cause to believe law enforcement is overstepping its bounds and infringing on those rights, he has the legal authority to intervene and pursue action on behalf of the United States to stop the practice and hold those responsible accountable. Of course, the Attorney General can't prosecute what he doesn't know about. It is law enforcement officers themselves who are out there on the frontlines protecting all of us. Congress and the American people depend on them to be vigilant and to speak up if they see something happening that they know is wrong. Those who do choose to step forward and report violations in accordance with our Federal laws deserve Federal whistleblower protections. That is why I am working to ensure that law enforcement whistleblowers who report violations of the constitutional rights of American citizens to Congress and the Justice Department are guaranteed simple whistleblower protections, which we give to a lot of other people. Another whistleblower bill currently awaiting passage is my Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation strengthens protections for private sector whistleblowers who report violations of antitrust laws. The bill was passed by the Senate last October and has been pending before the House of Representatives ever since. The House tries to argue that the Senate is the legislative graveyard. Wehear that from people across the Rotunda on almost anything and any day. But here is a case where its delayed action on this bill suggests that it isn't always the Senate that isn't considering this legislation. Each of these bills fills a critical void in our current whistleblower laws, and each one ought to receive consideration and an up-or-down vote before the end of this Congress. Of course, if that is going to happen, Congress needs to pick up its pace. It needs to take a cue from those strong actions taken by the Congress--the Continental Congress, let me emphasize, during the American Revolution, a body that saw the need, took the time, and devoted necessary resources to stand up for whistleblowers in the midst of a war for the very existence of our country. Today, let's all take a moment to reflect on the high standards that those early Americans set for us back on July 30, 1778, and let's remember never to let excuses or partisan differences keep us from pursuing our common interests in passing strong, meaningful whistleblower laws. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4605-2 | null | 1,025 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Reed, as the chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is our honor to pay tribute to a great leader and senior executive of the Department of Defense, Mr. Robert R. Hood. Mr. Hood has served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs from August 2017 to July 2020. As he prepares to leave this position to enter into the private sector, we commend him for his sound leadership, advice, and professional judgement on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Department of Defense, Congress, and this Nation. Mr. Hood has served our Nation for more than 18 years in various capacities within the Federal Government. His service to our Nation includes roles as a professional staff member for the House Committee on Science, as well as senior legislative assistant, senior policy advisor, and assistant to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for policy. Mr. Hood also served 5 years as the Director of Congressional Affairs for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. Mr. Hood previously served in the White House as special assistant to President George W. Bush in the Office of Legislative Affairs, overseeing coordination with the Senate, including the Armed Services, Homeland Security, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Before working on the White House staff, Mr. Hood served at the Pentagon as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, where he was responsible for promoting the policies, strategies, and budget of the Department of Defense to the U.S. Congress. Mr. Hood also served as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, for Budget and Appropriations Affairs, working closely with the Appropriations Committees of the Congress. For the past 3 years as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, Mr. Hood deftly managed and guided the Department's congressional relations, ensuring the preparation of key senior leaders for Senate confirmations, congressional hearings, and briefings, while simultaneously developing and leading a skilled and focused legislative affairs team. His leadership, knowledge, and personal efforts greatly contributed to one of the most successful legislative years in Department history, culminating with the establishment of the U.S. Space Force, which was signed into law on December 20, 2019 as part of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA. Mr. Hood provided significant contributions and leadership during the development and execution of the Secretary of Defense's Congressional Engagement Strategy, ensuring an integrated legislative program directly aligned with the National Defense Strategy. This comprehensive plan supported the Department's priorities, aligned legislative objectives to the congressional calendar, and guided the execution of over 4,000 congressional engagements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and oversight and alignment of over 10,000 congressional engagements across the Department during his 3-year tenure. The strategic execution of these engagements directly led to the attainment of Department of Defense legislative priorities and resourcing at historic levels in the fiscal years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 National Defense Authorization Acts, NDAAs, appropriations bills. On behalf of the Senate, we thank Robert, his wife Jennifer, and his children: Evan, Caroline, Megan, and Emma, for their continued commitment, sacrifice and contribution to this great Nation. We join our colleagues in wishing him future success as he transitions into the private sector. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4630 | null | 1,026 |
formal | Google | null | racist | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to honor my dear friend, Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Dave Lillehaug, on a distinguished career and well-deserved retirement. I have been lucky to call Dave a friend for 35 years and have seen him not just as a brilliant lawyer but a fearsome litigator, a tireless advocate in the pursuit of justice, and an excellent judge. In fact, the same skills that led him to endlessly prepare for his date with his future wife Winifred somehow also landed him on the Minnesota Supreme Court. Here is the story. Winifred told me that she was more than a little bit unnerved during her first date with Dave--a lunch in Washington after they met when she was selling condos and he was buying one. At lunch, Winifred realized just how much Dave already knew about her. She was from Pittsburgh, and he had read up on every detail about the town, including the latest steel plant closing. In those pre-Google days, 24 hours after meeting her, he had somehow researched every detail about her life so he could be informed and impressive on the first date. She had already been thoroughly ``vetted,'' as if she herself was being considered for a national office. She was a little concerned, so on the next date, she brought a friend who happened to work for the Chamber of Commerce--just so she could get a second opinion. Unfazed, wanting to impress her friend, Dave researched and memorized the entire legislative agenda for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Dave may have overdone it, and Winifred came away from the lunch convinced that he was interested in her friend and not her. Somehow, Dave salvaged it. Winifred and Dave have been happily married for 38 years. Those same skills Dave honed when he dated Winifred served him very well on the bench. I have so many fond memories of Dave, who impressed not just me but my family as well. On the day Paul Wellstone announced he was recommending Dave for U.S. attorney, my mom sent the article to me on my honeymoon with the words ``how exciting is this!'' In addition to the usual newlywed photos, that article made it into my official honeymoon scrapbook. Dave played a very important role in another seminal moment in my life as well. The night I was elected Hennepin County attorney, it was Dave counting the votes late into the night. It was close. Everyone went home--except Dave. And at 5:00 a.m. the next morning, Dave called to tell me I had officially won. I am very grateful for Dave's friendship, his wisdom, and his sound advice and will be forever in awe of his brilliant career--as I know Paul Wellstone would have been. Congratulations to Dave on his retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2020-07-30-pt1-PgS4631-2 | null | 1,027 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, this week,officials from the intelligence community, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security will brief us on foreign efforts to influence our politics and elections and how the administration is defending us. Every one of our colleagues should attend one of these sessions. Sharing sensitive threat information with Congress is just one of the ways this administration has outperformed its predecessor. The intelligence community kept Congress much more closely informed about these threats in 2018 and now in 2020 than it did in the runup to 2016. I am sure these briefings will contain details that might seem ripe for cherry-picking and partisan leaks from both sides, but it is essential that Congress remain a place where the word ``classified'' actually means something. Leaking intelligence jeopardizes sources and methods. If we learned anything from studying Russian interference in 2016, it is that our adversaries' ultimate objective is to leave America more divided and less confident in our institutions. Members of Congress must take special care not to do Putin's work for him. Foreign adversaries have long sought to interfere in our politics and elections. That didn't start in 2016, and it will not end in 2020, but this administration has put us in a far, far better position than in 2016. There is, simply, no comparison. The intelligence community is better aware of the threat. Government agencies are more transparent with Congress, the State and local jurisdictions that actually run elections, the private sector, and the public. In 2016, the Obama-Biden administration had to lean on congressional leadership to act as a bridge to the States because the States so distrusted their Department of Homeland Security. Over the last 4 years, this administration's DHS has develop its own deep relationship with State officials. In 2016, only 14 State or local jurisdictions had received high-tech Albert sensors to alert them to cyber intrusions. They are deployed in all 50 States today. There were 14 States that had them in 2016, and every State has them today. It was this administration that stood up the new Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, with participation from more than 2,600 local jurisdictions and counting. This administration has imposed real, hard costs on election interference and Russia's other misdeeds: shuttering the Kremlin's consulates in San Francisco and Seattle; kicking out intelligence officers; sanctioning oligarchs; helping European partners defend their own elections against Russia; and sending weapons to Ukraine and Georgia, which the Obama-Biden administration did not supply. This administration has also confronted China for what the State Department described as ``massive espionage and influence operations,'' including closing Beijing's consulate in Houston. As the Democratic vice chairman on the Senate Intelligence Committee stated in 2016, ``We were caught flatfooted.'' Not anymore. Congress has provided more than $800 million for States and localities to shore up election security and has passed a number of targeted new laws. Since foreign political interference is so often aimed at private sector platforms, like social media sites, we have encouraged those businesses to step up vigilance as well. Through all of this, we have also carefully avoided things that look like quick fixes but which would undermine our own institutions. In the United States of America, it is the States and localities, not the Federal Government, that run elections--period. Our lack of a one-size-fits-all national system isn't just constitutionally appropriate; it also acts as a further safeguard. We lack a single point of failure So, in closing, I urge all of our colleagues to attend these important briefings with an eye toward our real adversaries--not our fellow Americans but the foreign agents who love to see us at one another's throats. Back during the impeachment trial, a leading House Democrat asserted that, if President Trump were to win reelection, the people's vote would be presumptively invalid. Just a few days ago, it was reported that a leading Democratic strategist who was war-gaming this election decided to experiment with what would happen if Vice President Biden were to lose the election but were to, simply, fail to concede. Once again, this kind of recklessness achieves our adversaries' missions for them. So I urge my colleagues to listen to the civil servants who are defending our democracy. Let's stay united, focus on the real dangers posed by foreign intelligence, and resist the urge to politicize these vital subjects. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4653-9 | null | 1,028 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, this week,officials from the intelligence community, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security will brief us on foreign efforts to influence our politics and elections and how the administration is defending us. Every one of our colleagues should attend one of these sessions. Sharing sensitive threat information with Congress is just one of the ways this administration has outperformed its predecessor. The intelligence community kept Congress much more closely informed about these threats in 2018 and now in 2020 than it did in the runup to 2016. I am sure these briefings will contain details that might seem ripe for cherry-picking and partisan leaks from both sides, but it is essential that Congress remain a place where the word ``classified'' actually means something. Leaking intelligence jeopardizes sources and methods. If we learned anything from studying Russian interference in 2016, it is that our adversaries' ultimate objective is to leave America more divided and less confident in our institutions. Members of Congress must take special care not to do Putin's work for him. Foreign adversaries have long sought to interfere in our politics and elections. That didn't start in 2016, and it will not end in 2020, but this administration has put us in a far, far better position than in 2016. There is, simply, no comparison. The intelligence community is better aware of the threat. Government agencies are more transparent with Congress, the State and local jurisdictions that actually run elections, the private sector, and the public. In 2016, the Obama-Biden administration had to lean on congressional leadership to act as a bridge to the States because the States so distrusted their Department of Homeland Security. Over the last 4 years, this administration's DHS has develop its own deep relationship with State officials. In 2016, only 14 State or local jurisdictions had received high-tech Albert sensors to alert them to cyber intrusions. They are deployed in all 50 States today. There were 14 States that had them in 2016, and every State has them today. It was this administration that stood up the new Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, with participation from more than 2,600 local jurisdictions and counting. This administration has imposed real, hard costs on election interference and Russia's other misdeeds: shuttering the Kremlin's consulates in San Francisco and Seattle; kicking out intelligence officers; sanctioning oligarchs; helping European partners defend their own elections against Russia; and sending weapons to Ukraine and Georgia, which the Obama-Biden administration did not supply. This administration has also confronted China for what the State Department described as ``massive espionage and influence operations,'' including closing Beijing's consulate in Houston. As the Democratic vice chairman on the Senate Intelligence Committee stated in 2016, ``We were caught flatfooted.'' Not anymore. Congress has provided more than $800 million for States and localities to shore up election security and has passed a number of targeted new laws. Since foreign political interference is so often aimed at private sector platforms, like social media sites, we have encouraged those businesses to step up vigilance as well. Through all of this, we have also carefully avoided things that look like quick fixes but which would undermine our own institutions. In the United States of America, it is the States and localities, not the Federal Government, that run elections--period. Our lack of a one-size-fits-all national system isn't just constitutionally appropriate; it also acts as a further safeguard. We lack a single point of failure So, in closing, I urge all of our colleagues to attend these important briefings with an eye toward our real adversaries--not our fellow Americans but the foreign agents who love to see us at one another's throats. Back during the impeachment trial, a leading House Democrat asserted that, if President Trump were to win reelection, the people's vote would be presumptively invalid. Just a few days ago, it was reported that a leading Democratic strategist who was war-gaming this election decided to experiment with what would happen if Vice President Biden were to lose the election but were to, simply, fail to concede. Once again, this kind of recklessness achieves our adversaries' missions for them. So I urge my colleagues to listen to the civil servants who are defending our democracy. Let's stay united, focus on the real dangers posed by foreign intelligence, and resist the urge to politicize these vital subjects. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4653-9 | null | 1,029 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on one final matter, last week, the Senate Democratic leader brought an end to the additional Federal benefit for unemployed workers. The Republicans tried multiple times to extend the money, including at the same dollar level that our colleague himself said he wanted, but the Democratic leader blocked it all. This is the dynamic on the Democratic side that killed the subject of police reform back in June, and it has now jeopardized more coronavirus relief as well. The Democratic leaders insist publicly that they want an outcome, but they work alone, behind closed doors, to ensure a bipartisan agreement is, actually, not reached. We are about a week into the Speaker's and the Democratic leader's discussions with the administration--a week into the Democratic leadership's cutting out all of their Members--all of them--cutting out all of their committees, and saying that only they can participate. So how is it going? Well, the Democratic leader is still refusing to let struggling Americans get another dime unless he gets a massive tax cut for the wealthy people in blue States that has nothing to do with the coronavirus. I am not kidding. This is his position. There is nothing for schools, nothing for kids, nothing for the PPP, nothing for the healthcare fight. Nobody gets a dime unless the Democratic leader gets a massive tax cut for the rich people in New York and California. That is what he is saying. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader are continuing to say ``our way or the highway'' with the massive wish list for leftwing lobbyists they slapped together a few weeks ago and called a coronavirus bill--stimulus checks for illegal immigrants, diversity studies for the legal pot industry, and on and on. When they put out this proposal, even the media and their fellow Democrats pronounced this thing dead on arrival. Here was one report: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law--it's a Democratic wish list filled up with all the party's favored policies.'' Remember how Speaker Pelosi's own Members felt about this absurd proposal: ``Privately, several House Democrats concede their latest bill feels like little more than an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Even Democrats knew Speaker Pelosi's bill was unserious. But now, with the additional unemployment benefit disappearing, with families still struggling, they are going back to this unserious position and refusing to budge. I can't imagine this is how Democratic colleagues really all want this to play out. In March, we built the CARES Act by Republicans and Democrats working together at the committee level. This time, again, Republicans introduced a serious proposal written by our own chairmen and our own Members. But this time, the Democratic leader has cut Senate Democrats out entirely. He has forbidden their committees from even talking to Republicans. He is digging in on a House messaging bill, written with no input from his own Members, that even House Democrats themselves called absurd. These are not the tactics that would build a bipartisan result. These are not the tactics that will get more cash in Americans' pockets, more help to the unemployed, more assistance for schools to reopen. It is time for the Democratic leadership to get serious about making a law--making a law--for the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4654 | null | 1,030 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on one final matter, last week, the Senate Democratic leader brought an end to the additional Federal benefit for unemployed workers. The Republicans tried multiple times to extend the money, including at the same dollar level that our colleague himself said he wanted, but the Democratic leader blocked it all. This is the dynamic on the Democratic side that killed the subject of police reform back in June, and it has now jeopardized more coronavirus relief as well. The Democratic leaders insist publicly that they want an outcome, but they work alone, behind closed doors, to ensure a bipartisan agreement is, actually, not reached. We are about a week into the Speaker's and the Democratic leader's discussions with the administration--a week into the Democratic leadership's cutting out all of their Members--all of them--cutting out all of their committees, and saying that only they can participate. So how is it going? Well, the Democratic leader is still refusing to let struggling Americans get another dime unless he gets a massive tax cut for the wealthy people in blue States that has nothing to do with the coronavirus. I am not kidding. This is his position. There is nothing for schools, nothing for kids, nothing for the PPP, nothing for the healthcare fight. Nobody gets a dime unless the Democratic leader gets a massive tax cut for the rich people in New York and California. That is what he is saying. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader are continuing to say ``our way or the highway'' with the massive wish list for leftwing lobbyists they slapped together a few weeks ago and called a coronavirus bill--stimulus checks for illegal immigrants, diversity studies for the legal pot industry, and on and on. When they put out this proposal, even the media and their fellow Democrats pronounced this thing dead on arrival. Here was one report: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law--it's a Democratic wish list filled up with all the party's favored policies.'' Remember how Speaker Pelosi's own Members felt about this absurd proposal: ``Privately, several House Democrats concede their latest bill feels like little more than an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Even Democrats knew Speaker Pelosi's bill was unserious. But now, with the additional unemployment benefit disappearing, with families still struggling, they are going back to this unserious position and refusing to budge. I can't imagine this is how Democratic colleagues really all want this to play out. In March, we built the CARES Act by Republicans and Democrats working together at the committee level. This time, again, Republicans introduced a serious proposal written by our own chairmen and our own Members. But this time, the Democratic leader has cut Senate Democrats out entirely. He has forbidden their committees from even talking to Republicans. He is digging in on a House messaging bill, written with no input from his own Members, that even House Democrats themselves called absurd. These are not the tactics that would build a bipartisan result. These are not the tactics that will get more cash in Americans' pockets, more help to the unemployed, more assistance for schools to reopen. It is time for the Democratic leadership to get serious about making a law--making a law--for the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4654 | null | 1,031 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on one final matter, last week, the Senate Democratic leader brought an end to the additional Federal benefit for unemployed workers. The Republicans tried multiple times to extend the money, including at the same dollar level that our colleague himself said he wanted, but the Democratic leader blocked it all. This is the dynamic on the Democratic side that killed the subject of police reform back in June, and it has now jeopardized more coronavirus relief as well. The Democratic leaders insist publicly that they want an outcome, but they work alone, behind closed doors, to ensure a bipartisan agreement is, actually, not reached. We are about a week into the Speaker's and the Democratic leader's discussions with the administration--a week into the Democratic leadership's cutting out all of their Members--all of them--cutting out all of their committees, and saying that only they can participate. So how is it going? Well, the Democratic leader is still refusing to let struggling Americans get another dime unless he gets a massive tax cut for the wealthy people in blue States that has nothing to do with the coronavirus. I am not kidding. This is his position. There is nothing for schools, nothing for kids, nothing for the PPP, nothing for the healthcare fight. Nobody gets a dime unless the Democratic leader gets a massive tax cut for the rich people in New York and California. That is what he is saying. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader are continuing to say ``our way or the highway'' with the massive wish list for leftwing lobbyists they slapped together a few weeks ago and called a coronavirus bill--stimulus checks for illegal immigrants, diversity studies for the legal pot industry, and on and on. When they put out this proposal, even the media and their fellow Democrats pronounced this thing dead on arrival. Here was one report: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law--it's a Democratic wish list filled up with all the party's favored policies.'' Remember how Speaker Pelosi's own Members felt about this absurd proposal: ``Privately, several House Democrats concede their latest bill feels like little more than an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Even Democrats knew Speaker Pelosi's bill was unserious. But now, with the additional unemployment benefit disappearing, with families still struggling, they are going back to this unserious position and refusing to budge. I can't imagine this is how Democratic colleagues really all want this to play out. In March, we built the CARES Act by Republicans and Democrats working together at the committee level. This time, again, Republicans introduced a serious proposal written by our own chairmen and our own Members. But this time, the Democratic leader has cut Senate Democrats out entirely. He has forbidden their committees from even talking to Republicans. He is digging in on a House messaging bill, written with no input from his own Members, that even House Democrats themselves called absurd. These are not the tactics that would build a bipartisan result. These are not the tactics that will get more cash in Americans' pockets, more help to the unemployed, more assistance for schools to reopen. It is time for the Democratic leadership to get serious about making a law--making a law--for the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4654 | null | 1,032 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on one final matter, last week, the Senate Democratic leader brought an end to the additional Federal benefit for unemployed workers. The Republicans tried multiple times to extend the money, including at the same dollar level that our colleague himself said he wanted, but the Democratic leader blocked it all. This is the dynamic on the Democratic side that killed the subject of police reform back in June, and it has now jeopardized more coronavirus relief as well. The Democratic leaders insist publicly that they want an outcome, but they work alone, behind closed doors, to ensure a bipartisan agreement is, actually, not reached. We are about a week into the Speaker's and the Democratic leader's discussions with the administration--a week into the Democratic leadership's cutting out all of their Members--all of them--cutting out all of their committees, and saying that only they can participate. So how is it going? Well, the Democratic leader is still refusing to let struggling Americans get another dime unless he gets a massive tax cut for the wealthy people in blue States that has nothing to do with the coronavirus. I am not kidding. This is his position. There is nothing for schools, nothing for kids, nothing for the PPP, nothing for the healthcare fight. Nobody gets a dime unless the Democratic leader gets a massive tax cut for the rich people in New York and California. That is what he is saying. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader are continuing to say ``our way or the highway'' with the massive wish list for leftwing lobbyists they slapped together a few weeks ago and called a coronavirus bill--stimulus checks for illegal immigrants, diversity studies for the legal pot industry, and on and on. When they put out this proposal, even the media and their fellow Democrats pronounced this thing dead on arrival. Here was one report: ``Neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law--it's a Democratic wish list filled up with all the party's favored policies.'' Remember how Speaker Pelosi's own Members felt about this absurd proposal: ``Privately, several House Democrats concede their latest bill feels like little more than an effort to appease the most liberal members of the caucus.'' Even Democrats knew Speaker Pelosi's bill was unserious. But now, with the additional unemployment benefit disappearing, with families still struggling, they are going back to this unserious position and refusing to budge. I can't imagine this is how Democratic colleagues really all want this to play out. In March, we built the CARES Act by Republicans and Democrats working together at the committee level. This time, again, Republicans introduced a serious proposal written by our own chairmen and our own Members. But this time, the Democratic leader has cut Senate Democrats out entirely. He has forbidden their committees from even talking to Republicans. He is digging in on a House messaging bill, written with no input from his own Members, that even House Democrats themselves called absurd. These are not the tactics that would build a bipartisan result. These are not the tactics that will get more cash in Americans' pockets, more help to the unemployed, more assistance for schools to reopen. It is time for the Democratic leadership to get serious about making a law--making a law--for the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4654 | null | 1,033 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. The National Defense Authorization Act provides crucial resources for our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a pay increase for our men and women in uniform. I am glad that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland. While there are parts of this legislation that I do not support and will seek to change in conference, I believe that, on balance, this bill serves our national interest. In particular, I am pleased that this NDAA grants expanded acquisition authority for U.S. Cyber Command,headquartered at Fort Meade. I echo the comments of the Armed Services Committee in its report, which finds that Cyber Command's expanded mission and responsible use of its acquisition authority justify the removal of the constraints imposed by the FY16 NDAA. I appreciate that my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted Senator Warren's amendment directing the Pentagon to begin the process of renaming military bases named for Confederate soldiers. No American military installations should be named in honor of those who led the fight against the union to defend slavery. I also want to note my gratitude to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed and their staffs for working with me to include relief for the family of Lieutenant Richard W. Collins III. Lt. Collins' tragic death was made even more painful for his family through the challenges they faced in receiving the proper benefits and recognition for their son. Nothing will ever fill the void of their loss, but I am hopeful that this provision brings the Collins family some peace of mind. Additionally, it is worth highlighting for the record that the House NDAA included a provision extending the review period of the World War I valor medals review authorized by section 584 of last year's NDAA. The Valor Medals Review Task Force has worked tirelessly to identify the service records of World War I veterans who may have been passed over for the Medal of Honor on the basis of race or ethnicity. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has limited their access to research materials and necessitated an extension for them to complete their work. I encourage the conferees to retain the House's provision granting this extension. While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations. I am deeply disappointed that this bill authorizes full funding for the President's misguided and wasteful nuclear weapons programs while taking no action to preserve the New START treaty, the last standing agreement capping U.S. and Russian nuclear forces. For more than half a century, successive administrations have linked arms control with nuclear modernization efforts as a way of promoting stable deterrence and heading off an unconstrained arms race. Failure to extend New START will unravel this linkage, freeing Russia of limits on its nuclear arsenal and sparking a costly, destabilizing arms buildup. I also strongly oppose the authorization of funds to prepare for an explosive underground nuclear test, an act that would prompt our nuclear-armed adversaries to conduct their own tests and would undermine longstanding arms control and nonproliferation objectives. I applaud the House's passage of an amendment to bar nuclear testing in its NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to uphold this prohibition in conference negotiations. I also believe that this bill fails to tackle the long-term budget challenges facing our country, which is why I was disappointed that the Senate rejected Senator Sanders' amendment to reduce defense spending by 10 percent and invest that money into healthcare, education, and poverty reduction in communities with a poverty rate of 25 percent or more. In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 150,000 of our fellow Americans and shows no signs of slowing down, and the impending crises of homelessness and joblessness that we face if the Congress fails to provide relief, we simply cannot afford to continue this level of investment in defense at the expense of other critical national priorities. I regret that the Senate was not given an opportunity to vote on my amendment, cosponsored by 13 other Senators, prohibiting the use of U.S. security assistance to support the unilateral annexation of all or parts of the West Bank. The security assistance which the United States provides to Israel is an important element of the relationship between our two countries and one that I strongly support. As I explained in my floor statement at the time of its introduction, the amendment would not have reduced U.S. security assistance to Israel by a single penny. It would simply have ensured that no U.S. security assistance could be used for the purpose of unilaterally annexing territory in the West Bank. Furthermore, nothing in this amendment would have prohibited Israel from using U.S.-financed missile defense systems such as Iron Dome to defend against attacks in any territories that could be unilaterally annexed by the Israeli Government. Likewise, I am troubled that the majority leader would not permit a vote on Senators Wyden and Merkley's amendment to end the President's unconstitutional attacks on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights in Portland. Portland is not the first city to experience these tactics; President Trump sent unidentified Federal police onto the streets of our Nation's Capital to threaten peaceful protesters. Now, he is threatening to send them to other American cities, including Baltimore. We must require Federal agents to wear visible identification and ban them from making arrests or detentions using unmarked vehicles. The Senate's failure to act quickly to respond to the President's unconstitutional behavior is shameful. Finally, Majority Leader McConnell, at the behest of the Trump administration, once again blocked the inclusion the bipartisan DETER Act, which I introduced with Senator Rubio, to deter future Russian interference in U.S. Federal elections. The DETER Act sends a clear message to Russian President Putin or any other foreign adversary: If you attack American elections, you will face severe consequences. Leader McConnell blocked this measure from the last NDAA, even though the Senate had unanimously passed a resolution instructing the conferees to support its inclusion. The decision of the Trump administration, working through Senator McConnell, to continue to block the DETER Act effectively green-lights Russian interference in future U.S. elections. It is a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a subversion of the clear desire expressed by both Chambers of Congress to hold Russia accountable for future interference. It reinforces Putin's belief that the costs of attacking our democracy are low and the rewards are great. I will continue fighting for the passage of the DETER Act. The Presidential election is less than 4 months away, and we must make clear to Putin that Russia will pay a steep price if they interfere in another election. While I am opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4663-4 | null | 1,034 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. The National Defense Authorization Act provides crucial resources for our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a pay increase for our men and women in uniform. I am glad that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland. While there are parts of this legislation that I do not support and will seek to change in conference, I believe that, on balance, this bill serves our national interest. In particular, I am pleased that this NDAA grants expanded acquisition authority for U.S. Cyber Command,headquartered at Fort Meade. I echo the comments of the Armed Services Committee in its report, which finds that Cyber Command's expanded mission and responsible use of its acquisition authority justify the removal of the constraints imposed by the FY16 NDAA. I appreciate that my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted Senator Warren's amendment directing the Pentagon to begin the process of renaming military bases named for Confederate soldiers. No American military installations should be named in honor of those who led the fight against the union to defend slavery. I also want to note my gratitude to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed and their staffs for working with me to include relief for the family of Lieutenant Richard W. Collins III. Lt. Collins' tragic death was made even more painful for his family through the challenges they faced in receiving the proper benefits and recognition for their son. Nothing will ever fill the void of their loss, but I am hopeful that this provision brings the Collins family some peace of mind. Additionally, it is worth highlighting for the record that the House NDAA included a provision extending the review period of the World War I valor medals review authorized by section 584 of last year's NDAA. The Valor Medals Review Task Force has worked tirelessly to identify the service records of World War I veterans who may have been passed over for the Medal of Honor on the basis of race or ethnicity. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has limited their access to research materials and necessitated an extension for them to complete their work. I encourage the conferees to retain the House's provision granting this extension. While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations. I am deeply disappointed that this bill authorizes full funding for the President's misguided and wasteful nuclear weapons programs while taking no action to preserve the New START treaty, the last standing agreement capping U.S. and Russian nuclear forces. For more than half a century, successive administrations have linked arms control with nuclear modernization efforts as a way of promoting stable deterrence and heading off an unconstrained arms race. Failure to extend New START will unravel this linkage, freeing Russia of limits on its nuclear arsenal and sparking a costly, destabilizing arms buildup. I also strongly oppose the authorization of funds to prepare for an explosive underground nuclear test, an act that would prompt our nuclear-armed adversaries to conduct their own tests and would undermine longstanding arms control and nonproliferation objectives. I applaud the House's passage of an amendment to bar nuclear testing in its NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to uphold this prohibition in conference negotiations. I also believe that this bill fails to tackle the long-term budget challenges facing our country, which is why I was disappointed that the Senate rejected Senator Sanders' amendment to reduce defense spending by 10 percent and invest that money into healthcare, education, and poverty reduction in communities with a poverty rate of 25 percent or more. In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 150,000 of our fellow Americans and shows no signs of slowing down, and the impending crises of homelessness and joblessness that we face if the Congress fails to provide relief, we simply cannot afford to continue this level of investment in defense at the expense of other critical national priorities. I regret that the Senate was not given an opportunity to vote on my amendment, cosponsored by 13 other Senators, prohibiting the use of U.S. security assistance to support the unilateral annexation of all or parts of the West Bank. The security assistance which the United States provides to Israel is an important element of the relationship between our two countries and one that I strongly support. As I explained in my floor statement at the time of its introduction, the amendment would not have reduced U.S. security assistance to Israel by a single penny. It would simply have ensured that no U.S. security assistance could be used for the purpose of unilaterally annexing territory in the West Bank. Furthermore, nothing in this amendment would have prohibited Israel from using U.S.-financed missile defense systems such as Iron Dome to defend against attacks in any territories that could be unilaterally annexed by the Israeli Government. Likewise, I am troubled that the majority leader would not permit a vote on Senators Wyden and Merkley's amendment to end the President's unconstitutional attacks on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights in Portland. Portland is not the first city to experience these tactics; President Trump sent unidentified Federal police onto the streets of our Nation's Capital to threaten peaceful protesters. Now, he is threatening to send them to other American cities, including Baltimore. We must require Federal agents to wear visible identification and ban them from making arrests or detentions using unmarked vehicles. The Senate's failure to act quickly to respond to the President's unconstitutional behavior is shameful. Finally, Majority Leader McConnell, at the behest of the Trump administration, once again blocked the inclusion the bipartisan DETER Act, which I introduced with Senator Rubio, to deter future Russian interference in U.S. Federal elections. The DETER Act sends a clear message to Russian President Putin or any other foreign adversary: If you attack American elections, you will face severe consequences. Leader McConnell blocked this measure from the last NDAA, even though the Senate had unanimously passed a resolution instructing the conferees to support its inclusion. The decision of the Trump administration, working through Senator McConnell, to continue to block the DETER Act effectively green-lights Russian interference in future U.S. elections. It is a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a subversion of the clear desire expressed by both Chambers of Congress to hold Russia accountable for future interference. It reinforces Putin's belief that the costs of attacking our democracy are low and the rewards are great. I will continue fighting for the passage of the DETER Act. The Presidential election is less than 4 months away, and we must make clear to Putin that Russia will pay a steep price if they interfere in another election. While I am opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4663-4 | null | 1,035 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. The National Defense Authorization Act provides crucial resources for our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a pay increase for our men and women in uniform. I am glad that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland. While there are parts of this legislation that I do not support and will seek to change in conference, I believe that, on balance, this bill serves our national interest. In particular, I am pleased that this NDAA grants expanded acquisition authority for U.S. Cyber Command,headquartered at Fort Meade. I echo the comments of the Armed Services Committee in its report, which finds that Cyber Command's expanded mission and responsible use of its acquisition authority justify the removal of the constraints imposed by the FY16 NDAA. I appreciate that my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted Senator Warren's amendment directing the Pentagon to begin the process of renaming military bases named for Confederate soldiers. No American military installations should be named in honor of those who led the fight against the union to defend slavery. I also want to note my gratitude to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed and their staffs for working with me to include relief for the family of Lieutenant Richard W. Collins III. Lt. Collins' tragic death was made even more painful for his family through the challenges they faced in receiving the proper benefits and recognition for their son. Nothing will ever fill the void of their loss, but I am hopeful that this provision brings the Collins family some peace of mind. Additionally, it is worth highlighting for the record that the House NDAA included a provision extending the review period of the World War I valor medals review authorized by section 584 of last year's NDAA. The Valor Medals Review Task Force has worked tirelessly to identify the service records of World War I veterans who may have been passed over for the Medal of Honor on the basis of race or ethnicity. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has limited their access to research materials and necessitated an extension for them to complete their work. I encourage the conferees to retain the House's provision granting this extension. While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations. I am deeply disappointed that this bill authorizes full funding for the President's misguided and wasteful nuclear weapons programs while taking no action to preserve the New START treaty, the last standing agreement capping U.S. and Russian nuclear forces. For more than half a century, successive administrations have linked arms control with nuclear modernization efforts as a way of promoting stable deterrence and heading off an unconstrained arms race. Failure to extend New START will unravel this linkage, freeing Russia of limits on its nuclear arsenal and sparking a costly, destabilizing arms buildup. I also strongly oppose the authorization of funds to prepare for an explosive underground nuclear test, an act that would prompt our nuclear-armed adversaries to conduct their own tests and would undermine longstanding arms control and nonproliferation objectives. I applaud the House's passage of an amendment to bar nuclear testing in its NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to uphold this prohibition in conference negotiations. I also believe that this bill fails to tackle the long-term budget challenges facing our country, which is why I was disappointed that the Senate rejected Senator Sanders' amendment to reduce defense spending by 10 percent and invest that money into healthcare, education, and poverty reduction in communities with a poverty rate of 25 percent or more. In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 150,000 of our fellow Americans and shows no signs of slowing down, and the impending crises of homelessness and joblessness that we face if the Congress fails to provide relief, we simply cannot afford to continue this level of investment in defense at the expense of other critical national priorities. I regret that the Senate was not given an opportunity to vote on my amendment, cosponsored by 13 other Senators, prohibiting the use of U.S. security assistance to support the unilateral annexation of all or parts of the West Bank. The security assistance which the United States provides to Israel is an important element of the relationship between our two countries and one that I strongly support. As I explained in my floor statement at the time of its introduction, the amendment would not have reduced U.S. security assistance to Israel by a single penny. It would simply have ensured that no U.S. security assistance could be used for the purpose of unilaterally annexing territory in the West Bank. Furthermore, nothing in this amendment would have prohibited Israel from using U.S.-financed missile defense systems such as Iron Dome to defend against attacks in any territories that could be unilaterally annexed by the Israeli Government. Likewise, I am troubled that the majority leader would not permit a vote on Senators Wyden and Merkley's amendment to end the President's unconstitutional attacks on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights in Portland. Portland is not the first city to experience these tactics; President Trump sent unidentified Federal police onto the streets of our Nation's Capital to threaten peaceful protesters. Now, he is threatening to send them to other American cities, including Baltimore. We must require Federal agents to wear visible identification and ban them from making arrests or detentions using unmarked vehicles. The Senate's failure to act quickly to respond to the President's unconstitutional behavior is shameful. Finally, Majority Leader McConnell, at the behest of the Trump administration, once again blocked the inclusion the bipartisan DETER Act, which I introduced with Senator Rubio, to deter future Russian interference in U.S. Federal elections. The DETER Act sends a clear message to Russian President Putin or any other foreign adversary: If you attack American elections, you will face severe consequences. Leader McConnell blocked this measure from the last NDAA, even though the Senate had unanimously passed a resolution instructing the conferees to support its inclusion. The decision of the Trump administration, working through Senator McConnell, to continue to block the DETER Act effectively green-lights Russian interference in future U.S. elections. It is a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a subversion of the clear desire expressed by both Chambers of Congress to hold Russia accountable for future interference. It reinforces Putin's belief that the costs of attacking our democracy are low and the rewards are great. I will continue fighting for the passage of the DETER Act. The Presidential election is less than 4 months away, and we must make clear to Putin that Russia will pay a steep price if they interfere in another election. While I am opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4663-4 | null | 1,036 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Col. Ronald Dudley Ray, USMC, served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Guard/Reserve) during the Reagan administration and was a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who was an adviser to the South Vietnamese Marine Corps during the Tet Offensive and other campaigns. He was awarded two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star with combat V, and a Purple Heart. His gallantry under fire was exceeded only by his tenacious advocacy for his fellow veterans. He entered law school at the University of Louisville, where he graduated at the top of his class. Throughout his civilian career, he used his talent and professional skills to encourage, organize, and recognize veterans from the Vietnam era. He personally championed the Kentucky Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Frankfort, and led the way in raising $1 million for its design and construction. A great student of American history, he amassed a collection of over 10,000 books on the subject, and he shared his vast knowledge by writing and speaking about the history of the country he loved and served with such distinction. Colonel Ray, who passed away July 6, 2020, leaves a unique legacy of personal service to our Nation and dedication to its veterans that is worthy of this special distinction. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4665-2 | null | 1,037 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in 2008, Congress responded to rising reports of child sexual abuse material--CSAM--online by passing the PROTECT Act to direct the Department of Justice to combat these heinous crimes. However, in the decade that followed, DOJ failed to request the manpower, funding, and resources to combat this scourge, leaving both the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--NCMEC--and law enforcement agencies uncoordinated, understaffed, and underfunded. As a result, though tech companies reported more than 45 million instances of CSAM to NCMEC in the last year alone, just a fraction were investigated, and even fewer were prosecuted and convicted. Yet, rather than confronting this failure by Congress and the executive branch, my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have put forth the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies--EARN IT--Act, a deeply flawed piece of legislation that would revoke online platforms' intermediary liability protections with regard to not only Federal civil Jaw, but also any State law broadly related to CSAM. The EARN IT Act will not protect children. It will not stop the spread of child sexual abuse material, nor target the monsters who produce and share it, and it will not help the victims of these evil crimes. What it will do is threaten the free speech, privacy, and security of every single American. This is because, at its core, the amended EARN IT Act magnifies the failures of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act--SESTA--and its House companion, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act--FOSTA. Experts believe that SESTA/FOSTA has done nothing to help victims or stop sex trafficking, while creating collateral damage for marginalized communities and the speech of all Americans. A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of FOSTA on First Amendment grounds is proceeding through the courts, and there is bicameral Federal legislation to study the widespread negative impacts of the bill on marginalized groups. Yet, the authors of the EARN IT Act decided to take this kind of carveout and expand it further to State civil and criminal statutes. By allowing any individual State to set laws for internet content, this bill would create massive uncertainty, both for strong encryption and constitutionally protected speech online. What is worse, the flood of State laws that could potentially arise under the EARN IT Act raises strong Fourth Amendment concerns, meaning that any CSAM evidence collected could be rendered inadmissible in court and accused CSAM offenders could get off scot-free. This is not a risk that I am willing to take. Let me be clear: The proliferation of these heinous crimes against children is a serious problem. However, for these reasons and more, the EARN IT Act is not the solution. Moreover, it ignores what Congress can and should be doing to combat this heinous crime. The U.S. has a number of important evidence-based programs in existence that are proven to keep kids safe, and they are in desperate need of funding to do their good work. Yet the EARN IT Act doesn't include a single dollar of funding for these important programs. It is time for the U.S. Government to spend the funds necessary to save children's lives now. In May of 2020, I introduced the Invest in Child Safety Act to do exactly that. My bill would drastically increase the number of prosecutors and agents hunting down child predators, require a single person to be personally responsible for these efforts, and direct more than $5 billion in mandatory funding to the folks who can actually make a difference in this fight. I believe this historic, mandatory investment in personnel and funding is necessary to truly take on the scourge of child exploitation, and I urge my colleagues to support my approach. Meanwhile, I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding the EARN IT Act. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4665 | null | 1,038 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in 2008, Congress responded to rising reports of child sexual abuse material--CSAM--online by passing the PROTECT Act to direct the Department of Justice to combat these heinous crimes. However, in the decade that followed, DOJ failed to request the manpower, funding, and resources to combat this scourge, leaving both the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--NCMEC--and law enforcement agencies uncoordinated, understaffed, and underfunded. As a result, though tech companies reported more than 45 million instances of CSAM to NCMEC in the last year alone, just a fraction were investigated, and even fewer were prosecuted and convicted. Yet, rather than confronting this failure by Congress and the executive branch, my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have put forth the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies--EARN IT--Act, a deeply flawed piece of legislation that would revoke online platforms' intermediary liability protections with regard to not only Federal civil Jaw, but also any State law broadly related to CSAM. The EARN IT Act will not protect children. It will not stop the spread of child sexual abuse material, nor target the monsters who produce and share it, and it will not help the victims of these evil crimes. What it will do is threaten the free speech, privacy, and security of every single American. This is because, at its core, the amended EARN IT Act magnifies the failures of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act--SESTA--and its House companion, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act--FOSTA. Experts believe that SESTA/FOSTA has done nothing to help victims or stop sex trafficking, while creating collateral damage for marginalized communities and the speech of all Americans. A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of FOSTA on First Amendment grounds is proceeding through the courts, and there is bicameral Federal legislation to study the widespread negative impacts of the bill on marginalized groups. Yet, the authors of the EARN IT Act decided to take this kind of carveout and expand it further to State civil and criminal statutes. By allowing any individual State to set laws for internet content, this bill would create massive uncertainty, both for strong encryption and constitutionally protected speech online. What is worse, the flood of State laws that could potentially arise under the EARN IT Act raises strong Fourth Amendment concerns, meaning that any CSAM evidence collected could be rendered inadmissible in court and accused CSAM offenders could get off scot-free. This is not a risk that I am willing to take. Let me be clear: The proliferation of these heinous crimes against children is a serious problem. However, for these reasons and more, the EARN IT Act is not the solution. Moreover, it ignores what Congress can and should be doing to combat this heinous crime. The U.S. has a number of important evidence-based programs in existence that are proven to keep kids safe, and they are in desperate need of funding to do their good work. Yet the EARN IT Act doesn't include a single dollar of funding for these important programs. It is time for the U.S. Government to spend the funds necessary to save children's lives now. In May of 2020, I introduced the Invest in Child Safety Act to do exactly that. My bill would drastically increase the number of prosecutors and agents hunting down child predators, require a single person to be personally responsible for these efforts, and direct more than $5 billion in mandatory funding to the folks who can actually make a difference in this fight. I believe this historic, mandatory investment in personnel and funding is necessary to truly take on the scourge of child exploitation, and I urge my colleagues to support my approach. Meanwhile, I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding the EARN IT Act. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4665 | null | 1,039 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize Diana O'Connor, the Indian River County Teacher of the Year from Beachland Elementary School in Vero Beach, FL. Diana instills her love for learning in each student, knowing this is important for them today and later in their academic careers. Diana began a schoolwide initiative for collecting soda can tabs for Ronald McDonald House Charities and is one of the lead representatives for her school's Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Pennies for Patients program. She brings awareness of these issues to her students to assist their classmates who may be in need of help without their classmates knowing about it. Diana is the exceptional student education department chair and assists general education teachers in planning standards-based instruction and diverse lesson plans at Beachland Elementary School. She is also an ESOL endorsed educator. Diana graduated cum laude from the University of Central Florida with a bachelor's degree in specific learning disabilities for kindergarten through twelfth grade and is currently working towards her reading endorsement. Diana is a certified crisis prevention and intervention educator, a clinical educator, and an Indian River County Education Association member. I offer my sincere gratitude to Diana for helping students learn throughout the school year. I look forward to hearing of her continued success in the years to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. RUBIO | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4666-2 | null | 1,040 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bill was discharged from the Committee on Finance, and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: S. 4323. A bill to save and strengthen critical social contract programs of the Federal Government. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-03-pt1-PgS4667-8 | null | 1,041 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, another day has come and gone in this once-in-a-century national battle for our country. Yesterday, more of our neighbors had to say goodbye to loved ones whose lives were claimed by this virus. Yesterday, more doctors and more nurses worked long shifts on the frontlines, fighting to heal strangers and limit the national death toll that now exceeds 150,000. Yesterday, more workers brought home pink slips, and more Main Street businesses saw the end of their PPP lifelines fast approaching. Yesterday, more laid-off Americans filed new claims for unemployment insurance or lay awake wondering about next month's rent. Yesterday, more school officials wondered what to tell parents, students, and teachers about September. What happened here in the Capitol yesterday? With the American people fighting all of these battles and more, what did the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader do with yet another day of deliberations? Yet again, it was the exact same refrain. It never seems to change: We are feeling optimistic. We spoke very politely to the administration, but we are still nowhere close on the substance. It has now been more than a week since Senate Republicans released a serious proposal for another major rescue package--$1 trillion for kids, jobs, and healthcare. The Democrats are blocking it all. It is like they expect applause for merely keeping a civil tone with the President's team--never mind they are still obstructing any action for our country. Senate Republicans want to revive a Federal add-on to unemployment insurance, which the Democratic leader would not let us extend last week. We want to send another round of direct checks straight into families' pockets. We want to supply generous, new incentives for rehiring American workers and workplace safety. We want to send historic money to schools for reopening and invest even more in testing and vaccine research. We want legal protections so schools, churches, charities, and businesses can reopen. The Democrats say they want many of the same things. I certainly believe that many of my Democratic colleagues who serve as ranking members want many of the same things and could easily find common ground with our chairmen if the Democratic leader would let them talk. Instead, we have gotten a full week of the Speaker of the House's and the Democratic leader's shutting out all of their own Members and refusing to move an inch off of demands that everyone knows are outlandish. The Democratic leaders want the entirety of their massive, far-left wish list--all of it. Speaker Pelosi is still agitating for strange, new special interest carve-outs for the marijuana industry--even claiming they are COVID-related. She said that, with respect to this virus, marijuana is ``a therapy that has proven successful.'' You can't make this up. I hope she shared her breakthrough with Dr. Fauci. In the other corner, Leader Schumer is still demanding massive tax cuts for rich people in blue States or he won't let any relief become law. These are the kinds of nongermane pet projects that our Democratic colleagues are demanding--not a dime for kids, jobs, and healthcare unless the administration let's them check off every leftwing lobbyist's Christmas list 5 months early. Let's listen to what Speaker Pelosi's own House Democrats said about this bill when they passed it. Here is what House Democrats said about the bill that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader now say is their absolute redline: One quote: ``The partisan nature and wide scope of this bill make it doomed upon arrival in the Senate.'' Another quote: ``In response to COVID-19, our relief efforts must be targeted, timely, and transparent. The HEROES Act does not meet those standards.'' Another quote: ``This isn't a plan; it's a wish list.'' Another quote: ``Partisan gamesmanship.'' Another quote: ``Some in my own party . . . have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law, further declaring the help so many need.'' Those are quotes from House Democrats' views about the so-called Heroes Act, but now the entire thing is the price of admission for giving hard-hit Americans any more aid. What worked back in March with the CARES Act were productive and good-faith conversations between chairmen and ranking members--a bipartisan process led by Members. But this time, the Speaker and the Democratic leader have forbidden their Members from negotiating at all. The ranking member on HELP cannot even discuss testing with Chairman Alexander. The ranking member on Small Business cannot even discuss PPP with Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins. No, no; the Speaker and the Democratic leader only want themselves at the table so that behind closed doors they can say that nobody gets another dime of Federal unemployment money; nobody gets extra school funding; and nobody gets more money for testing and PPE unless they burn cash on 1,000 unrelated things. I am talking about things like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants; a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. Let me say that again--a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. In my State, the State administration only spent 6 percent of the money we sent them--6 percent--diversity and inclusion studies, a soil health program, and on and on and on. The House bill does all these things while completely forgetting a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program--no second round for PPP--and sending less money for schools than the Senate bill. This is what they will not budge from. And every day the script is the same, and the script is: We had a pleasant conversation, but we don't feel like making a deal. Maybe tomorrow. Here is the problem: Every day the Democratic leaders repeat the same act here in the Capitol, they are letting down the struggling people who need our help. Day after day, Americans are trying to stay above water--layoffs, benefit cuts, threats of eviction, the possibility of losing a family business forever, towns wondering if their Main Streets will ever come back, school principals with no idea what to tell communities. That is the reality in Kentucky and in all 50 States, and none of these people are helped one bit, not one bit, by the Democratic leaders' charade. What American families need is an outcome, a bipartisan result. Senate Republicans have had a roadmap sitting on the table for more than a week. We didn't put every Republican wish list item in history into an 1,800-page encyclopedia and insist on starting there. We built a serious starting place based on the bipartisan programs we passed back in March--unanimously, by the way--and what the country needs now. If our colleagues across the aisle would do the same--frankly, if our colleagues across the aisle were even allowed--allowed to take part in the discussions, we could get this done for our country. We did it in March. We could do it again, but both sides have to actually want it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4679-6 | null | 1,042 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, another day has come and gone in this once-in-a-century national battle for our country. Yesterday, more of our neighbors had to say goodbye to loved ones whose lives were claimed by this virus. Yesterday, more doctors and more nurses worked long shifts on the frontlines, fighting to heal strangers and limit the national death toll that now exceeds 150,000. Yesterday, more workers brought home pink slips, and more Main Street businesses saw the end of their PPP lifelines fast approaching. Yesterday, more laid-off Americans filed new claims for unemployment insurance or lay awake wondering about next month's rent. Yesterday, more school officials wondered what to tell parents, students, and teachers about September. What happened here in the Capitol yesterday? With the American people fighting all of these battles and more, what did the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader do with yet another day of deliberations? Yet again, it was the exact same refrain. It never seems to change: We are feeling optimistic. We spoke very politely to the administration, but we are still nowhere close on the substance. It has now been more than a week since Senate Republicans released a serious proposal for another major rescue package--$1 trillion for kids, jobs, and healthcare. The Democrats are blocking it all. It is like they expect applause for merely keeping a civil tone with the President's team--never mind they are still obstructing any action for our country. Senate Republicans want to revive a Federal add-on to unemployment insurance, which the Democratic leader would not let us extend last week. We want to send another round of direct checks straight into families' pockets. We want to supply generous, new incentives for rehiring American workers and workplace safety. We want to send historic money to schools for reopening and invest even more in testing and vaccine research. We want legal protections so schools, churches, charities, and businesses can reopen. The Democrats say they want many of the same things. I certainly believe that many of my Democratic colleagues who serve as ranking members want many of the same things and could easily find common ground with our chairmen if the Democratic leader would let them talk. Instead, we have gotten a full week of the Speaker of the House's and the Democratic leader's shutting out all of their own Members and refusing to move an inch off of demands that everyone knows are outlandish. The Democratic leaders want the entirety of their massive, far-left wish list--all of it. Speaker Pelosi is still agitating for strange, new special interest carve-outs for the marijuana industry--even claiming they are COVID-related. She said that, with respect to this virus, marijuana is ``a therapy that has proven successful.'' You can't make this up. I hope she shared her breakthrough with Dr. Fauci. In the other corner, Leader Schumer is still demanding massive tax cuts for rich people in blue States or he won't let any relief become law. These are the kinds of nongermane pet projects that our Democratic colleagues are demanding--not a dime for kids, jobs, and healthcare unless the administration let's them check off every leftwing lobbyist's Christmas list 5 months early. Let's listen to what Speaker Pelosi's own House Democrats said about this bill when they passed it. Here is what House Democrats said about the bill that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader now say is their absolute redline: One quote: ``The partisan nature and wide scope of this bill make it doomed upon arrival in the Senate.'' Another quote: ``In response to COVID-19, our relief efforts must be targeted, timely, and transparent. The HEROES Act does not meet those standards.'' Another quote: ``This isn't a plan; it's a wish list.'' Another quote: ``Partisan gamesmanship.'' Another quote: ``Some in my own party . . . have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law, further declaring the help so many need.'' Those are quotes from House Democrats' views about the so-called Heroes Act, but now the entire thing is the price of admission for giving hard-hit Americans any more aid. What worked back in March with the CARES Act were productive and good-faith conversations between chairmen and ranking members--a bipartisan process led by Members. But this time, the Speaker and the Democratic leader have forbidden their Members from negotiating at all. The ranking member on HELP cannot even discuss testing with Chairman Alexander. The ranking member on Small Business cannot even discuss PPP with Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins. No, no; the Speaker and the Democratic leader only want themselves at the table so that behind closed doors they can say that nobody gets another dime of Federal unemployment money; nobody gets extra school funding; and nobody gets more money for testing and PPE unless they burn cash on 1,000 unrelated things. I am talking about things like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants; a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. Let me say that again--a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. In my State, the State administration only spent 6 percent of the money we sent them--6 percent--diversity and inclusion studies, a soil health program, and on and on and on. The House bill does all these things while completely forgetting a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program--no second round for PPP--and sending less money for schools than the Senate bill. This is what they will not budge from. And every day the script is the same, and the script is: We had a pleasant conversation, but we don't feel like making a deal. Maybe tomorrow. Here is the problem: Every day the Democratic leaders repeat the same act here in the Capitol, they are letting down the struggling people who need our help. Day after day, Americans are trying to stay above water--layoffs, benefit cuts, threats of eviction, the possibility of losing a family business forever, towns wondering if their Main Streets will ever come back, school principals with no idea what to tell communities. That is the reality in Kentucky and in all 50 States, and none of these people are helped one bit, not one bit, by the Democratic leaders' charade. What American families need is an outcome, a bipartisan result. Senate Republicans have had a roadmap sitting on the table for more than a week. We didn't put every Republican wish list item in history into an 1,800-page encyclopedia and insist on starting there. We built a serious starting place based on the bipartisan programs we passed back in March--unanimously, by the way--and what the country needs now. If our colleagues across the aisle would do the same--frankly, if our colleagues across the aisle were even allowed--allowed to take part in the discussions, we could get this done for our country. We did it in March. We could do it again, but both sides have to actually want it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4679-6 | null | 1,043 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, another day has come and gone in this once-in-a-century national battle for our country. Yesterday, more of our neighbors had to say goodbye to loved ones whose lives were claimed by this virus. Yesterday, more doctors and more nurses worked long shifts on the frontlines, fighting to heal strangers and limit the national death toll that now exceeds 150,000. Yesterday, more workers brought home pink slips, and more Main Street businesses saw the end of their PPP lifelines fast approaching. Yesterday, more laid-off Americans filed new claims for unemployment insurance or lay awake wondering about next month's rent. Yesterday, more school officials wondered what to tell parents, students, and teachers about September. What happened here in the Capitol yesterday? With the American people fighting all of these battles and more, what did the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader do with yet another day of deliberations? Yet again, it was the exact same refrain. It never seems to change: We are feeling optimistic. We spoke very politely to the administration, but we are still nowhere close on the substance. It has now been more than a week since Senate Republicans released a serious proposal for another major rescue package--$1 trillion for kids, jobs, and healthcare. The Democrats are blocking it all. It is like they expect applause for merely keeping a civil tone with the President's team--never mind they are still obstructing any action for our country. Senate Republicans want to revive a Federal add-on to unemployment insurance, which the Democratic leader would not let us extend last week. We want to send another round of direct checks straight into families' pockets. We want to supply generous, new incentives for rehiring American workers and workplace safety. We want to send historic money to schools for reopening and invest even more in testing and vaccine research. We want legal protections so schools, churches, charities, and businesses can reopen. The Democrats say they want many of the same things. I certainly believe that many of my Democratic colleagues who serve as ranking members want many of the same things and could easily find common ground with our chairmen if the Democratic leader would let them talk. Instead, we have gotten a full week of the Speaker of the House's and the Democratic leader's shutting out all of their own Members and refusing to move an inch off of demands that everyone knows are outlandish. The Democratic leaders want the entirety of their massive, far-left wish list--all of it. Speaker Pelosi is still agitating for strange, new special interest carve-outs for the marijuana industry--even claiming they are COVID-related. She said that, with respect to this virus, marijuana is ``a therapy that has proven successful.'' You can't make this up. I hope she shared her breakthrough with Dr. Fauci. In the other corner, Leader Schumer is still demanding massive tax cuts for rich people in blue States or he won't let any relief become law. These are the kinds of nongermane pet projects that our Democratic colleagues are demanding--not a dime for kids, jobs, and healthcare unless the administration let's them check off every leftwing lobbyist's Christmas list 5 months early. Let's listen to what Speaker Pelosi's own House Democrats said about this bill when they passed it. Here is what House Democrats said about the bill that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader now say is their absolute redline: One quote: ``The partisan nature and wide scope of this bill make it doomed upon arrival in the Senate.'' Another quote: ``In response to COVID-19, our relief efforts must be targeted, timely, and transparent. The HEROES Act does not meet those standards.'' Another quote: ``This isn't a plan; it's a wish list.'' Another quote: ``Partisan gamesmanship.'' Another quote: ``Some in my own party . . . have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law, further declaring the help so many need.'' Those are quotes from House Democrats' views about the so-called Heroes Act, but now the entire thing is the price of admission for giving hard-hit Americans any more aid. What worked back in March with the CARES Act were productive and good-faith conversations between chairmen and ranking members--a bipartisan process led by Members. But this time, the Speaker and the Democratic leader have forbidden their Members from negotiating at all. The ranking member on HELP cannot even discuss testing with Chairman Alexander. The ranking member on Small Business cannot even discuss PPP with Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins. No, no; the Speaker and the Democratic leader only want themselves at the table so that behind closed doors they can say that nobody gets another dime of Federal unemployment money; nobody gets extra school funding; and nobody gets more money for testing and PPE unless they burn cash on 1,000 unrelated things. I am talking about things like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants; a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. Let me say that again--a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. In my State, the State administration only spent 6 percent of the money we sent them--6 percent--diversity and inclusion studies, a soil health program, and on and on and on. The House bill does all these things while completely forgetting a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program--no second round for PPP--and sending less money for schools than the Senate bill. This is what they will not budge from. And every day the script is the same, and the script is: We had a pleasant conversation, but we don't feel like making a deal. Maybe tomorrow. Here is the problem: Every day the Democratic leaders repeat the same act here in the Capitol, they are letting down the struggling people who need our help. Day after day, Americans are trying to stay above water--layoffs, benefit cuts, threats of eviction, the possibility of losing a family business forever, towns wondering if their Main Streets will ever come back, school principals with no idea what to tell communities. That is the reality in Kentucky and in all 50 States, and none of these people are helped one bit, not one bit, by the Democratic leaders' charade. What American families need is an outcome, a bipartisan result. Senate Republicans have had a roadmap sitting on the table for more than a week. We didn't put every Republican wish list item in history into an 1,800-page encyclopedia and insist on starting there. We built a serious starting place based on the bipartisan programs we passed back in March--unanimously, by the way--and what the country needs now. If our colleagues across the aisle would do the same--frankly, if our colleagues across the aisle were even allowed--allowed to take part in the discussions, we could get this done for our country. We did it in March. We could do it again, but both sides have to actually want it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4679-6 | null | 1,044 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, another day has come and gone in this once-in-a-century national battle for our country. Yesterday, more of our neighbors had to say goodbye to loved ones whose lives were claimed by this virus. Yesterday, more doctors and more nurses worked long shifts on the frontlines, fighting to heal strangers and limit the national death toll that now exceeds 150,000. Yesterday, more workers brought home pink slips, and more Main Street businesses saw the end of their PPP lifelines fast approaching. Yesterday, more laid-off Americans filed new claims for unemployment insurance or lay awake wondering about next month's rent. Yesterday, more school officials wondered what to tell parents, students, and teachers about September. What happened here in the Capitol yesterday? With the American people fighting all of these battles and more, what did the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader do with yet another day of deliberations? Yet again, it was the exact same refrain. It never seems to change: We are feeling optimistic. We spoke very politely to the administration, but we are still nowhere close on the substance. It has now been more than a week since Senate Republicans released a serious proposal for another major rescue package--$1 trillion for kids, jobs, and healthcare. The Democrats are blocking it all. It is like they expect applause for merely keeping a civil tone with the President's team--never mind they are still obstructing any action for our country. Senate Republicans want to revive a Federal add-on to unemployment insurance, which the Democratic leader would not let us extend last week. We want to send another round of direct checks straight into families' pockets. We want to supply generous, new incentives for rehiring American workers and workplace safety. We want to send historic money to schools for reopening and invest even more in testing and vaccine research. We want legal protections so schools, churches, charities, and businesses can reopen. The Democrats say they want many of the same things. I certainly believe that many of my Democratic colleagues who serve as ranking members want many of the same things and could easily find common ground with our chairmen if the Democratic leader would let them talk. Instead, we have gotten a full week of the Speaker of the House's and the Democratic leader's shutting out all of their own Members and refusing to move an inch off of demands that everyone knows are outlandish. The Democratic leaders want the entirety of their massive, far-left wish list--all of it. Speaker Pelosi is still agitating for strange, new special interest carve-outs for the marijuana industry--even claiming they are COVID-related. She said that, with respect to this virus, marijuana is ``a therapy that has proven successful.'' You can't make this up. I hope she shared her breakthrough with Dr. Fauci. In the other corner, Leader Schumer is still demanding massive tax cuts for rich people in blue States or he won't let any relief become law. These are the kinds of nongermane pet projects that our Democratic colleagues are demanding--not a dime for kids, jobs, and healthcare unless the administration let's them check off every leftwing lobbyist's Christmas list 5 months early. Let's listen to what Speaker Pelosi's own House Democrats said about this bill when they passed it. Here is what House Democrats said about the bill that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader now say is their absolute redline: One quote: ``The partisan nature and wide scope of this bill make it doomed upon arrival in the Senate.'' Another quote: ``In response to COVID-19, our relief efforts must be targeted, timely, and transparent. The HEROES Act does not meet those standards.'' Another quote: ``This isn't a plan; it's a wish list.'' Another quote: ``Partisan gamesmanship.'' Another quote: ``Some in my own party . . . have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law, further declaring the help so many need.'' Those are quotes from House Democrats' views about the so-called Heroes Act, but now the entire thing is the price of admission for giving hard-hit Americans any more aid. What worked back in March with the CARES Act were productive and good-faith conversations between chairmen and ranking members--a bipartisan process led by Members. But this time, the Speaker and the Democratic leader have forbidden their Members from negotiating at all. The ranking member on HELP cannot even discuss testing with Chairman Alexander. The ranking member on Small Business cannot even discuss PPP with Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins. No, no; the Speaker and the Democratic leader only want themselves at the table so that behind closed doors they can say that nobody gets another dime of Federal unemployment money; nobody gets extra school funding; and nobody gets more money for testing and PPE unless they burn cash on 1,000 unrelated things. I am talking about things like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants; a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. Let me say that again--a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. In my State, the State administration only spent 6 percent of the money we sent them--6 percent--diversity and inclusion studies, a soil health program, and on and on and on. The House bill does all these things while completely forgetting a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program--no second round for PPP--and sending less money for schools than the Senate bill. This is what they will not budge from. And every day the script is the same, and the script is: We had a pleasant conversation, but we don't feel like making a deal. Maybe tomorrow. Here is the problem: Every day the Democratic leaders repeat the same act here in the Capitol, they are letting down the struggling people who need our help. Day after day, Americans are trying to stay above water--layoffs, benefit cuts, threats of eviction, the possibility of losing a family business forever, towns wondering if their Main Streets will ever come back, school principals with no idea what to tell communities. That is the reality in Kentucky and in all 50 States, and none of these people are helped one bit, not one bit, by the Democratic leaders' charade. What American families need is an outcome, a bipartisan result. Senate Republicans have had a roadmap sitting on the table for more than a week. We didn't put every Republican wish list item in history into an 1,800-page encyclopedia and insist on starting there. We built a serious starting place based on the bipartisan programs we passed back in March--unanimously, by the way--and what the country needs now. If our colleagues across the aisle would do the same--frankly, if our colleagues across the aisle were even allowed--allowed to take part in the discussions, we could get this done for our country. We did it in March. We could do it again, but both sides have to actually want it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4679-6 | null | 1,045 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, another day has come and gone in this once-in-a-century national battle for our country. Yesterday, more of our neighbors had to say goodbye to loved ones whose lives were claimed by this virus. Yesterday, more doctors and more nurses worked long shifts on the frontlines, fighting to heal strangers and limit the national death toll that now exceeds 150,000. Yesterday, more workers brought home pink slips, and more Main Street businesses saw the end of their PPP lifelines fast approaching. Yesterday, more laid-off Americans filed new claims for unemployment insurance or lay awake wondering about next month's rent. Yesterday, more school officials wondered what to tell parents, students, and teachers about September. What happened here in the Capitol yesterday? With the American people fighting all of these battles and more, what did the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader do with yet another day of deliberations? Yet again, it was the exact same refrain. It never seems to change: We are feeling optimistic. We spoke very politely to the administration, but we are still nowhere close on the substance. It has now been more than a week since Senate Republicans released a serious proposal for another major rescue package--$1 trillion for kids, jobs, and healthcare. The Democrats are blocking it all. It is like they expect applause for merely keeping a civil tone with the President's team--never mind they are still obstructing any action for our country. Senate Republicans want to revive a Federal add-on to unemployment insurance, which the Democratic leader would not let us extend last week. We want to send another round of direct checks straight into families' pockets. We want to supply generous, new incentives for rehiring American workers and workplace safety. We want to send historic money to schools for reopening and invest even more in testing and vaccine research. We want legal protections so schools, churches, charities, and businesses can reopen. The Democrats say they want many of the same things. I certainly believe that many of my Democratic colleagues who serve as ranking members want many of the same things and could easily find common ground with our chairmen if the Democratic leader would let them talk. Instead, we have gotten a full week of the Speaker of the House's and the Democratic leader's shutting out all of their own Members and refusing to move an inch off of demands that everyone knows are outlandish. The Democratic leaders want the entirety of their massive, far-left wish list--all of it. Speaker Pelosi is still agitating for strange, new special interest carve-outs for the marijuana industry--even claiming they are COVID-related. She said that, with respect to this virus, marijuana is ``a therapy that has proven successful.'' You can't make this up. I hope she shared her breakthrough with Dr. Fauci. In the other corner, Leader Schumer is still demanding massive tax cuts for rich people in blue States or he won't let any relief become law. These are the kinds of nongermane pet projects that our Democratic colleagues are demanding--not a dime for kids, jobs, and healthcare unless the administration let's them check off every leftwing lobbyist's Christmas list 5 months early. Let's listen to what Speaker Pelosi's own House Democrats said about this bill when they passed it. Here is what House Democrats said about the bill that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader now say is their absolute redline: One quote: ``The partisan nature and wide scope of this bill make it doomed upon arrival in the Senate.'' Another quote: ``In response to COVID-19, our relief efforts must be targeted, timely, and transparent. The HEROES Act does not meet those standards.'' Another quote: ``This isn't a plan; it's a wish list.'' Another quote: ``Partisan gamesmanship.'' Another quote: ``Some in my own party . . . have decided to use this package as an opportunity to make political statements and propose a bill that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law, further declaring the help so many need.'' Those are quotes from House Democrats' views about the so-called Heroes Act, but now the entire thing is the price of admission for giving hard-hit Americans any more aid. What worked back in March with the CARES Act were productive and good-faith conversations between chairmen and ranking members--a bipartisan process led by Members. But this time, the Speaker and the Democratic leader have forbidden their Members from negotiating at all. The ranking member on HELP cannot even discuss testing with Chairman Alexander. The ranking member on Small Business cannot even discuss PPP with Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins. No, no; the Speaker and the Democratic leader only want themselves at the table so that behind closed doors they can say that nobody gets another dime of Federal unemployment money; nobody gets extra school funding; and nobody gets more money for testing and PPE unless they burn cash on 1,000 unrelated things. I am talking about things like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants; a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. Let me say that again--a trillion-dollar slush fund for States, even though States and localities have only spent a quarter of the money we sent them in March. In my State, the State administration only spent 6 percent of the money we sent them--6 percent--diversity and inclusion studies, a soil health program, and on and on and on. The House bill does all these things while completely forgetting a second round of the Paycheck Protection Program--no second round for PPP--and sending less money for schools than the Senate bill. This is what they will not budge from. And every day the script is the same, and the script is: We had a pleasant conversation, but we don't feel like making a deal. Maybe tomorrow. Here is the problem: Every day the Democratic leaders repeat the same act here in the Capitol, they are letting down the struggling people who need our help. Day after day, Americans are trying to stay above water--layoffs, benefit cuts, threats of eviction, the possibility of losing a family business forever, towns wondering if their Main Streets will ever come back, school principals with no idea what to tell communities. That is the reality in Kentucky and in all 50 States, and none of these people are helped one bit, not one bit, by the Democratic leaders' charade. What American families need is an outcome, a bipartisan result. Senate Republicans have had a roadmap sitting on the table for more than a week. We didn't put every Republican wish list item in history into an 1,800-page encyclopedia and insist on starting there. We built a serious starting place based on the bipartisan programs we passed back in March--unanimously, by the way--and what the country needs now. If our colleagues across the aisle would do the same--frankly, if our colleagues across the aisle were even allowed--allowed to take part in the discussions, we could get this done for our country. We did it in March. We could do it again, but both sides have to actually want it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4679-6 | null | 1,046 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, 5 days ago, I stood before you and this body and urged our fellow Senators to reach across the aisle and find agreement on how we can best help millions of Americans who have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own due to this once-in-a-century pandemic. I made a simple request for Senators to be pragmatic, to meet in the middle, and to expand the unemployment benefits through Friday--for 7 days--while Congress continues to work through our differences and comes up with a solution. I asked: Who could possibly be against this? Well, it turns out the minority leader came to the floor personally in order to object. The Senator from New York decided to play political theater and thought it was more important than assisting Americans who have been struggling to make ends meet. Once again, he led the way and used hard-working Arizonans and Americans as pawns in a political game. For the many Arizonans who are out of work right now, this is not a game. So here I am again, asking for a simple extension through the end of this week so that Arizonans don't see an interruption to these benefits as we work through our differences. Again, I ask: Who could possibly be against this? While some States continue expanded checks after they expired on Friday for a few weeks, Arizonans got their last one. These Arizonans live in my neighborhood. They live on my street. They worked paycheck to paycheck before this pandemic hit, and then they couldn't work. These Arizonans are people we know, like the single mom of two from Phoenix who for the first time in her life had to rely on unemployment to survive. She is the owner of a catering business. She has seen her income drop drastically, as weddings and large events continue to be canceled. The $840 she collected a week on unemployment is helping her get through, keeping her afloat, keeping her business and her family afloat to care for her two sons, one of whom is autistic and requires significant support. I am pleading with my fellow Senators: As we work through our differences, let's extend her benefit for 1 week. Who could possibly be against her? Last week I heard from another single mother of three who lives in Tucson. She told me she is terrified of falling into poverty because she is forced to live on $240 a week. The extra that we provided during this once-in-a-century pandemic helped her pay her bills and make ends meet. I am imploring my fellow Senators to extend her benefits, to keep her afloat for 1 week while we work through our differences, to address what we need to do to fight this pandemic, to defeat this virus, which we will, and provide the economic support and the recovery we need, because America will emerge stronger from this. We need to work through those differences. Let's just extend this for a week. Who could possibly be against her? Arizona seniors are also suffering. A 70-year-old man in Arizona drove for Uber and Lyft before the pandemic hit. He can no longer safely drive strangers throughout Phoenix given his high-risk status. He, too, benefited from the extended unemployment. That additional week will really make a difference for him. Again, I ask my fellow Senators: Who could possibly be against his getting those benefits for another week? These are just three of the countless stories I have heard from Arizonians. They are pleading with Congress to put the bickering and the dysfunction aside and work together. When I got back home last weekend, people were asking: Why did they object? It was for 7 days while you guys work through your differences. Why can't you guys get your act together? Why can't you just do your jobs and, in the meantime, just give us 7 more days? That is a reasonable request. That is why I am here again to offer a simple, commonsense solution--to extend the expanded $600 for unemployed Americans through the week while we continue to work through our differences here to provide economic support, relief, and economic recovery for America. Who could possibly be against this? Who could possibly be against this? Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. McSALLY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4699 | null | 1,047 |
formal | single mom | null | racist | Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, 5 days ago, I stood before you and this body and urged our fellow Senators to reach across the aisle and find agreement on how we can best help millions of Americans who have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own due to this once-in-a-century pandemic. I made a simple request for Senators to be pragmatic, to meet in the middle, and to expand the unemployment benefits through Friday--for 7 days--while Congress continues to work through our differences and comes up with a solution. I asked: Who could possibly be against this? Well, it turns out the minority leader came to the floor personally in order to object. The Senator from New York decided to play political theater and thought it was more important than assisting Americans who have been struggling to make ends meet. Once again, he led the way and used hard-working Arizonans and Americans as pawns in a political game. For the many Arizonans who are out of work right now, this is not a game. So here I am again, asking for a simple extension through the end of this week so that Arizonans don't see an interruption to these benefits as we work through our differences. Again, I ask: Who could possibly be against this? While some States continue expanded checks after they expired on Friday for a few weeks, Arizonans got their last one. These Arizonans live in my neighborhood. They live on my street. They worked paycheck to paycheck before this pandemic hit, and then they couldn't work. These Arizonans are people we know, like the single mom of two from Phoenix who for the first time in her life had to rely on unemployment to survive. She is the owner of a catering business. She has seen her income drop drastically, as weddings and large events continue to be canceled. The $840 she collected a week on unemployment is helping her get through, keeping her afloat, keeping her business and her family afloat to care for her two sons, one of whom is autistic and requires significant support. I am pleading with my fellow Senators: As we work through our differences, let's extend her benefit for 1 week. Who could possibly be against her? Last week I heard from another single mother of three who lives in Tucson. She told me she is terrified of falling into poverty because she is forced to live on $240 a week. The extra that we provided during this once-in-a-century pandemic helped her pay her bills and make ends meet. I am imploring my fellow Senators to extend her benefits, to keep her afloat for 1 week while we work through our differences, to address what we need to do to fight this pandemic, to defeat this virus, which we will, and provide the economic support and the recovery we need, because America will emerge stronger from this. We need to work through those differences. Let's just extend this for a week. Who could possibly be against her? Arizona seniors are also suffering. A 70-year-old man in Arizona drove for Uber and Lyft before the pandemic hit. He can no longer safely drive strangers throughout Phoenix given his high-risk status. He, too, benefited from the extended unemployment. That additional week will really make a difference for him. Again, I ask my fellow Senators: Who could possibly be against his getting those benefits for another week? These are just three of the countless stories I have heard from Arizonians. They are pleading with Congress to put the bickering and the dysfunction aside and work together. When I got back home last weekend, people were asking: Why did they object? It was for 7 days while you guys work through your differences. Why can't you guys get your act together? Why can't you just do your jobs and, in the meantime, just give us 7 more days? That is a reasonable request. That is why I am here again to offer a simple, commonsense solution--to extend the expanded $600 for unemployed Americans through the week while we continue to work through our differences here to provide economic support, relief, and economic recovery for America. Who could possibly be against this? Who could possibly be against this? Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. McSALLY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4699 | null | 1,048 |
formal | single mother | null | racist | Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, 5 days ago, I stood before you and this body and urged our fellow Senators to reach across the aisle and find agreement on how we can best help millions of Americans who have lost their livelihoods through no fault of their own due to this once-in-a-century pandemic. I made a simple request for Senators to be pragmatic, to meet in the middle, and to expand the unemployment benefits through Friday--for 7 days--while Congress continues to work through our differences and comes up with a solution. I asked: Who could possibly be against this? Well, it turns out the minority leader came to the floor personally in order to object. The Senator from New York decided to play political theater and thought it was more important than assisting Americans who have been struggling to make ends meet. Once again, he led the way and used hard-working Arizonans and Americans as pawns in a political game. For the many Arizonans who are out of work right now, this is not a game. So here I am again, asking for a simple extension through the end of this week so that Arizonans don't see an interruption to these benefits as we work through our differences. Again, I ask: Who could possibly be against this? While some States continue expanded checks after they expired on Friday for a few weeks, Arizonans got their last one. These Arizonans live in my neighborhood. They live on my street. They worked paycheck to paycheck before this pandemic hit, and then they couldn't work. These Arizonans are people we know, like the single mom of two from Phoenix who for the first time in her life had to rely on unemployment to survive. She is the owner of a catering business. She has seen her income drop drastically, as weddings and large events continue to be canceled. The $840 she collected a week on unemployment is helping her get through, keeping her afloat, keeping her business and her family afloat to care for her two sons, one of whom is autistic and requires significant support. I am pleading with my fellow Senators: As we work through our differences, let's extend her benefit for 1 week. Who could possibly be against her? Last week I heard from another single mother of three who lives in Tucson. She told me she is terrified of falling into poverty because she is forced to live on $240 a week. The extra that we provided during this once-in-a-century pandemic helped her pay her bills and make ends meet. I am imploring my fellow Senators to extend her benefits, to keep her afloat for 1 week while we work through our differences, to address what we need to do to fight this pandemic, to defeat this virus, which we will, and provide the economic support and the recovery we need, because America will emerge stronger from this. We need to work through those differences. Let's just extend this for a week. Who could possibly be against her? Arizona seniors are also suffering. A 70-year-old man in Arizona drove for Uber and Lyft before the pandemic hit. He can no longer safely drive strangers throughout Phoenix given his high-risk status. He, too, benefited from the extended unemployment. That additional week will really make a difference for him. Again, I ask my fellow Senators: Who could possibly be against his getting those benefits for another week? These are just three of the countless stories I have heard from Arizonians. They are pleading with Congress to put the bickering and the dysfunction aside and work together. When I got back home last weekend, people were asking: Why did they object? It was for 7 days while you guys work through your differences. Why can't you guys get your act together? Why can't you just do your jobs and, in the meantime, just give us 7 more days? That is a reasonable request. That is why I am here again to offer a simple, commonsense solution--to extend the expanded $600 for unemployed Americans through the week while we continue to work through our differences here to provide economic support, relief, and economic recovery for America. Who could possibly be against this? Who could possibly be against this? Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. McSALLY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4699 | null | 1,049 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to offer a proposal that really is going to help working families and those who are trying to make rent, trying to pay for groceries, who every single day walk an economic tightrope balancing their food bill against their fuel bill. We just heard a little bit about how we really need to solve the problem. This does that because, under our bill, S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act of 2020, what we wish to do on our side is tie these unemployment benefits to the actual conditions of the American economy on the ground. We have had this proposal for months now because, to some extent--and I see my good friend from South Dakota. He made an important point in this discussion. He is a member of the Finance Committee, and I saw an article in which he stated, you know, it is important for people who are really hurting in a tough economy--it is important for them to get benefits that let them pay the rent and buy groceries. Then my good friend from South Dakota made a point I agree with. He said: You know, when the economy gets better and unemployment goes down, then--in the words of the Senator from South Dakota--the benefits can taper off to reflect that. That is essentially what S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act that I have authored with the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, does is it ensures that we are not going to have millions of workers every month or every few months live in fear that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are going to pull the rug out from under them. We would have a benefit that would reflect economic conditions on the ground, and it would deal with this economic challenge for all the months until the economy recovers. That is what Senator Schumer and I put forward some time ago. The $600 would gradually phase down based on the State's average unemployment rate over 3 months. This would provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economy continues to receive the support it needs. And, especially, it doesn't set up artificial timelines. That is what the Senate ought to be avoiding, to just set arbitrary dates. What we need to do is make sure that politicians--and, certainly, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have been willing to pull the rug out from under the unemployed. We need to make sure that there is a plan going forward. That is what S. 4143 does, the American Workforce Rescue Act. It will provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economic recovery will be our focus, and there will be support until we see that kind of recovery. So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4700 | null | 1,050 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to offer a proposal that really is going to help working families and those who are trying to make rent, trying to pay for groceries, who every single day walk an economic tightrope balancing their food bill against their fuel bill. We just heard a little bit about how we really need to solve the problem. This does that because, under our bill, S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act of 2020, what we wish to do on our side is tie these unemployment benefits to the actual conditions of the American economy on the ground. We have had this proposal for months now because, to some extent--and I see my good friend from South Dakota. He made an important point in this discussion. He is a member of the Finance Committee, and I saw an article in which he stated, you know, it is important for people who are really hurting in a tough economy--it is important for them to get benefits that let them pay the rent and buy groceries. Then my good friend from South Dakota made a point I agree with. He said: You know, when the economy gets better and unemployment goes down, then--in the words of the Senator from South Dakota--the benefits can taper off to reflect that. That is essentially what S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act that I have authored with the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, does is it ensures that we are not going to have millions of workers every month or every few months live in fear that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are going to pull the rug out from under them. We would have a benefit that would reflect economic conditions on the ground, and it would deal with this economic challenge for all the months until the economy recovers. That is what Senator Schumer and I put forward some time ago. The $600 would gradually phase down based on the State's average unemployment rate over 3 months. This would provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economy continues to receive the support it needs. And, especially, it doesn't set up artificial timelines. That is what the Senate ought to be avoiding, to just set arbitrary dates. What we need to do is make sure that politicians--and, certainly, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have been willing to pull the rug out from under the unemployed. We need to make sure that there is a plan going forward. That is what S. 4143 does, the American Workforce Rescue Act. It will provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economic recovery will be our focus, and there will be support until we see that kind of recovery. So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4700 | null | 1,051 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to offer a proposal that really is going to help working families and those who are trying to make rent, trying to pay for groceries, who every single day walk an economic tightrope balancing their food bill against their fuel bill. We just heard a little bit about how we really need to solve the problem. This does that because, under our bill, S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act of 2020, what we wish to do on our side is tie these unemployment benefits to the actual conditions of the American economy on the ground. We have had this proposal for months now because, to some extent--and I see my good friend from South Dakota. He made an important point in this discussion. He is a member of the Finance Committee, and I saw an article in which he stated, you know, it is important for people who are really hurting in a tough economy--it is important for them to get benefits that let them pay the rent and buy groceries. Then my good friend from South Dakota made a point I agree with. He said: You know, when the economy gets better and unemployment goes down, then--in the words of the Senator from South Dakota--the benefits can taper off to reflect that. That is essentially what S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act that I have authored with the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, does is it ensures that we are not going to have millions of workers every month or every few months live in fear that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are going to pull the rug out from under them. We would have a benefit that would reflect economic conditions on the ground, and it would deal with this economic challenge for all the months until the economy recovers. That is what Senator Schumer and I put forward some time ago. The $600 would gradually phase down based on the State's average unemployment rate over 3 months. This would provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economy continues to receive the support it needs. And, especially, it doesn't set up artificial timelines. That is what the Senate ought to be avoiding, to just set arbitrary dates. What we need to do is make sure that politicians--and, certainly, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have been willing to pull the rug out from under the unemployed. We need to make sure that there is a plan going forward. That is what S. 4143 does, the American Workforce Rescue Act. It will provide certainty for families and ensure the broader economic recovery will be our focus, and there will be support until we see that kind of recovery. So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 4143, the American Workforce Rescue Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4700 | null | 1,052 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this morning, I had the privilege of attending the President's signing of the Great American Outdoors Act. Now, this is a town, Washington, DC, that is accustomed to hyperbole--that is exaggeration--and excessive partisanship. Yet, today, we had neither. As the Secretary of the Interior said, the bill the President signed is, clearly, the most important conservation and outdoor recreation legislation that has passed in this Congress and become law in at least a half century. It may only be exceeded by the actual funding of the National Park System itself as it was gradually created, over time, to become an agency with 419 properties. This legislation does two things. One, it tackles the deferred maintenance backlogs in the Park System. By that I mean, look at our campground in the Great Smokies, which normally has 5,000 families camping there, but it has been closed for a number of years because the sewage system doesn't work. There are examples all across this country, from the Pearl Harbor Visitor Center to the National Mall, of worn-out trails, of roads with holes in them, of roofs that leak, and of sewage systems that don't work. As a result, campgrounds are closed because bathrooms don't operate. All of these are our national parks and our public lands, which is where we want to go and where we especially want to go right now because what all of us want is to get out. We want to get outdoors. We want some fresh, clean air that we can breathe. The head of Bass Pro Shops was telling me at the White House this morning that, at first, COVID really hurt Bass Pro Shops and that they had to close a lot of stores. Guess what is happening now. The purchasing of fishing licenses is going up at a record level. People are taking their sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters fishing and hunting--outdoors and to the parks. This is something that everyone who cares about the outdoors has been worried about since the last generation--that young people were not going out to the parks. They are going today because they want to get outside. So today was a wonderful day, and everyone agreed that this was the most important bill for conservation and the outdoors in at least a half century. The Republicans agree with that. The Democrats agree with that. Hundreds of conservation groups agree with that. The President of the United States also agrees with that. It is no exaggeration to say that something remarkable and historic happened today when the President signed the Great American Outdoors Act. It is also accurate to say it was wholly bipartisan because it never would have passed if it had not been, and it barely passed even though it was. It took a Herculean effort. So I come to the floor briefly today to talk about some of those persons who made a difference in this historic event. There were many marchers in this parade. There always are when something passes in the U.S. Senate. One Senator never really does anything. It takes a parade of Senators--almost always of both parties--and it takes the House of Representatives. It also takes the President of the United States. Because Presidents don't always get the credit they deserve, I want to say that there were many marchers in this parade--there were Democrats and Republicans, and there were hundreds of outdoors groups--but this historic conservation legislation would not have happened had it not been for President Trump. Here is why. He is the first President of the United States to allow and support the use of money derived from energy exploration on Federal lands for deferred maintenance in our national parks, and if the President and the Office of Management and Budget don't support that, it is not going to happen, which is one reason this bill hasn't happened even though people have been trying to do it for years. I mentioned the history of this and the deferred maintenance. As the Secretary of the Interior pointed out, it was in the Eisenhower years when we had the last big investment in our National Park System. I know for a fact that the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was the other important part of this legislation--$900 million a year permanently for the Land and Water Conservation Fund--was a recommendation of the Rockefeller Commission in the Lyndon Johnson administration, which Congress enacted in 1964. I spent some time on that myself when I was Chairman of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1985 and 1986. It was our No. 1 recommendation that Congress should do what had been recommended in 1964, and now we are in 2020. So good people have been working since 1964 to make the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent, and it was signed into law today. Good people have been working since the Eisenhower years to deal with the deferred maintenance backlog--the potholes, the roofs, the sewage systems, the visitor centers, and the malls--in our national parks. That bill was signed today. It is historic. If the President had not allowed the money to be used in that way and had not supported it strongly in the Republican caucus, where we had some trouble getting enough votes until we got plenty of votes, it wouldn't have happened. He did one other thing which people don't know about. Our bipartisan group of Senators asked me if I would ask him, when he visited Tennessee in early March, if he would add to the bill or if he would support adding to the bill the national forests and the national wildlife refuges in the Bureau of Land Management and the Indian schools, which are in disrepair, so that the deferred maintenance of all of those would be added to this. He said: Yes, let's do it. I called that information back to the bipartisan group of managers, and the group was excited. It was added to the bill, and that became law today as well. Take the Cherokee National Forest, which is adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. We hear more about the Smokies, for 10 million, 11 million, 12 million people go there every year. It has a $224 million maintenance backlog. This will cut that in half over 5 years. The Cherokee National Forest is right next to the Smokies and has 3 million visitors a year, which is more than most national parks. It has a $27 million backlog, and this will cut that in half. The Indian schools will get hundreds of millions of dollars in order to build them back up, and they are in bad shape. So the President deserves credit for that. There were many important marchers in that parade, but it would not have happened without President Trump. Let me just mention some of the other marchers, and let's talk about the ones in the U.S. Senate. I will not go on at great length about them, but I do want to acknowledge them Let's start with Senator Warner, of Virginia, and Senator Portman, of Ohio. They, in working with the National Parks Conservation Association and others, introduced the bill to reduce the maintenance backlog in the parks. Secretary Zinke came to Tennessee 3 years ago and asked me to do a similar thing, and I worked with Senator King of Maine. We introduced a bill. Then we put those bills together. So Senator Warner, Senator King, and Senator Portman deserve a lot of credit for the work they have done on that part of the bill. Then we have the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I mentioned how long that work had been going on. Senator Burr of North Carolina has been an advocate of that for many years. Senator Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington State, has been as well. More recently, Senator Manchin, who is the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has taken a major leadership role in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Then there were Senators Gardner and Daines. If there were a parade, you would have to say they were the drum majors. They were out front. They helped to work with the President. They helped to work with this group. So you can see what kind of parade we are talking about. Senator Heinrich of New Mexico--a strong, progressive Democrat, with great respect in his caucus--made sure that we kept the thing on balance and brought a real conservationist zeal to this effort. We take him for granted, but let us give Senator McConnell, the majorityleader, some credit. In the middle of COVID, he agreed, at our request, to give us 2 weeks to debate this bill and try to pass it--2 weeks of Senate floor time. If Mitch McConnell had not put the bill on the floor, the bill would never have had a chance to pass. I thank the Democratic leader, as well, for creating an environment within his caucus wherein we could work through the difficult issues that arose. Now, that is just part of the honor roll of U.S. Senators who were involved in all of this, but it is an important honor roll. I should add Senator Collins, of Maine, who, from the beginning, was a strong supporter of both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and of the Restore Our Parks Act. So, when I say ``parade,'' that is what I am talking about. There are many marchers in this parade, and every single one of those U.S. Senators--both Democrats and Republicans--was essential to the passage of this bill. The final group was made up of outside groups. Some people said there were more than 800 conservation and outdoor groups in support of this. That sounds a little bit like hyperbole to me, but I think it might have been true. I mean, this is something that organizations have worked on for decades--literally decades. Some of the people I saw at the White House today were the same people I met in the mid-1980s when I was the Chairman of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Most of the people involved with the Rockefeller Commission are gone now, which was in 1963 and 1964, but people for decades have worked on this. I couldn't begin to mention all of them, but The Nature Conservancy would be one. Pew would be another. Then there is the National Wildlife Federation, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the National Park Foundation. Sally Jewell, the former Secretary of the Interior in the last administration, helped to organize and lead many of these folks. So you can see, with that sort of breadth and every Interior Secretary from Babbitt to Zinke, we had quite a parade of Americans who wanted to celebrate the great American outdoors. People say that Italy has its art, that England has its history, that Egypt has its pyramids, but that the United States has the great American outdoors. We celebrated that today, and I was proud to be one marcher in that parade. As the President signed the legislation, I was thinking of some gesture I could make to him or gift I could give him that would be appropriate so as to recognize, of all of the marchers in the parade, that he was the most consequential because, if he had not supported it, it wouldn't have happened. So I took with me a walking stick that was as tall as I am--about his size--that was given to me in 1978 when I was walking across Tennessee in my campaign for the Governor of Tennessee. I walked in a red and black shirt--a lot like the mask I wear today. People would give me walking sticks, and this was a walking stick that was carved by a Smoky Mountain craftsman. It is a mountain man walking stick. It is, really, a beautiful stick. I gave it to the President. He looked a little surprised, and then he took it and walked away with it. I said: Mr. President, you may find this will come in handy during the rest of the year. He said: I think it will. So that was a heartfelt gesture to the President. I am glad he liked it. I know the people in the Great Smoky Mountains like this piece of legislation and are grateful for his work on it. I hope he keeps that walking stick as a token of respect for his support and appreciation for what he has done to help this whole parade of Senators on both sides of the aisle create this new law. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ALEXANDER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4702 | null | 1,053 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this morning, I had the privilege of attending the President's signing of the Great American Outdoors Act. Now, this is a town, Washington, DC, that is accustomed to hyperbole--that is exaggeration--and excessive partisanship. Yet, today, we had neither. As the Secretary of the Interior said, the bill the President signed is, clearly, the most important conservation and outdoor recreation legislation that has passed in this Congress and become law in at least a half century. It may only be exceeded by the actual funding of the National Park System itself as it was gradually created, over time, to become an agency with 419 properties. This legislation does two things. One, it tackles the deferred maintenance backlogs in the Park System. By that I mean, look at our campground in the Great Smokies, which normally has 5,000 families camping there, but it has been closed for a number of years because the sewage system doesn't work. There are examples all across this country, from the Pearl Harbor Visitor Center to the National Mall, of worn-out trails, of roads with holes in them, of roofs that leak, and of sewage systems that don't work. As a result, campgrounds are closed because bathrooms don't operate. All of these are our national parks and our public lands, which is where we want to go and where we especially want to go right now because what all of us want is to get out. We want to get outdoors. We want some fresh, clean air that we can breathe. The head of Bass Pro Shops was telling me at the White House this morning that, at first, COVID really hurt Bass Pro Shops and that they had to close a lot of stores. Guess what is happening now. The purchasing of fishing licenses is going up at a record level. People are taking their sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters fishing and hunting--outdoors and to the parks. This is something that everyone who cares about the outdoors has been worried about since the last generation--that young people were not going out to the parks. They are going today because they want to get outside. So today was a wonderful day, and everyone agreed that this was the most important bill for conservation and the outdoors in at least a half century. The Republicans agree with that. The Democrats agree with that. Hundreds of conservation groups agree with that. The President of the United States also agrees with that. It is no exaggeration to say that something remarkable and historic happened today when the President signed the Great American Outdoors Act. It is also accurate to say it was wholly bipartisan because it never would have passed if it had not been, and it barely passed even though it was. It took a Herculean effort. So I come to the floor briefly today to talk about some of those persons who made a difference in this historic event. There were many marchers in this parade. There always are when something passes in the U.S. Senate. One Senator never really does anything. It takes a parade of Senators--almost always of both parties--and it takes the House of Representatives. It also takes the President of the United States. Because Presidents don't always get the credit they deserve, I want to say that there were many marchers in this parade--there were Democrats and Republicans, and there were hundreds of outdoors groups--but this historic conservation legislation would not have happened had it not been for President Trump. Here is why. He is the first President of the United States to allow and support the use of money derived from energy exploration on Federal lands for deferred maintenance in our national parks, and if the President and the Office of Management and Budget don't support that, it is not going to happen, which is one reason this bill hasn't happened even though people have been trying to do it for years. I mentioned the history of this and the deferred maintenance. As the Secretary of the Interior pointed out, it was in the Eisenhower years when we had the last big investment in our National Park System. I know for a fact that the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was the other important part of this legislation--$900 million a year permanently for the Land and Water Conservation Fund--was a recommendation of the Rockefeller Commission in the Lyndon Johnson administration, which Congress enacted in 1964. I spent some time on that myself when I was Chairman of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1985 and 1986. It was our No. 1 recommendation that Congress should do what had been recommended in 1964, and now we are in 2020. So good people have been working since 1964 to make the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent, and it was signed into law today. Good people have been working since the Eisenhower years to deal with the deferred maintenance backlog--the potholes, the roofs, the sewage systems, the visitor centers, and the malls--in our national parks. That bill was signed today. It is historic. If the President had not allowed the money to be used in that way and had not supported it strongly in the Republican caucus, where we had some trouble getting enough votes until we got plenty of votes, it wouldn't have happened. He did one other thing which people don't know about. Our bipartisan group of Senators asked me if I would ask him, when he visited Tennessee in early March, if he would add to the bill or if he would support adding to the bill the national forests and the national wildlife refuges in the Bureau of Land Management and the Indian schools, which are in disrepair, so that the deferred maintenance of all of those would be added to this. He said: Yes, let's do it. I called that information back to the bipartisan group of managers, and the group was excited. It was added to the bill, and that became law today as well. Take the Cherokee National Forest, which is adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. We hear more about the Smokies, for 10 million, 11 million, 12 million people go there every year. It has a $224 million maintenance backlog. This will cut that in half over 5 years. The Cherokee National Forest is right next to the Smokies and has 3 million visitors a year, which is more than most national parks. It has a $27 million backlog, and this will cut that in half. The Indian schools will get hundreds of millions of dollars in order to build them back up, and they are in bad shape. So the President deserves credit for that. There were many important marchers in that parade, but it would not have happened without President Trump. Let me just mention some of the other marchers, and let's talk about the ones in the U.S. Senate. I will not go on at great length about them, but I do want to acknowledge them Let's start with Senator Warner, of Virginia, and Senator Portman, of Ohio. They, in working with the National Parks Conservation Association and others, introduced the bill to reduce the maintenance backlog in the parks. Secretary Zinke came to Tennessee 3 years ago and asked me to do a similar thing, and I worked with Senator King of Maine. We introduced a bill. Then we put those bills together. So Senator Warner, Senator King, and Senator Portman deserve a lot of credit for the work they have done on that part of the bill. Then we have the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I mentioned how long that work had been going on. Senator Burr of North Carolina has been an advocate of that for many years. Senator Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington State, has been as well. More recently, Senator Manchin, who is the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has taken a major leadership role in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Then there were Senators Gardner and Daines. If there were a parade, you would have to say they were the drum majors. They were out front. They helped to work with the President. They helped to work with this group. So you can see what kind of parade we are talking about. Senator Heinrich of New Mexico--a strong, progressive Democrat, with great respect in his caucus--made sure that we kept the thing on balance and brought a real conservationist zeal to this effort. We take him for granted, but let us give Senator McConnell, the majorityleader, some credit. In the middle of COVID, he agreed, at our request, to give us 2 weeks to debate this bill and try to pass it--2 weeks of Senate floor time. If Mitch McConnell had not put the bill on the floor, the bill would never have had a chance to pass. I thank the Democratic leader, as well, for creating an environment within his caucus wherein we could work through the difficult issues that arose. Now, that is just part of the honor roll of U.S. Senators who were involved in all of this, but it is an important honor roll. I should add Senator Collins, of Maine, who, from the beginning, was a strong supporter of both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and of the Restore Our Parks Act. So, when I say ``parade,'' that is what I am talking about. There are many marchers in this parade, and every single one of those U.S. Senators--both Democrats and Republicans--was essential to the passage of this bill. The final group was made up of outside groups. Some people said there were more than 800 conservation and outdoor groups in support of this. That sounds a little bit like hyperbole to me, but I think it might have been true. I mean, this is something that organizations have worked on for decades--literally decades. Some of the people I saw at the White House today were the same people I met in the mid-1980s when I was the Chairman of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Most of the people involved with the Rockefeller Commission are gone now, which was in 1963 and 1964, but people for decades have worked on this. I couldn't begin to mention all of them, but The Nature Conservancy would be one. Pew would be another. Then there is the National Wildlife Federation, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the National Park Foundation. Sally Jewell, the former Secretary of the Interior in the last administration, helped to organize and lead many of these folks. So you can see, with that sort of breadth and every Interior Secretary from Babbitt to Zinke, we had quite a parade of Americans who wanted to celebrate the great American outdoors. People say that Italy has its art, that England has its history, that Egypt has its pyramids, but that the United States has the great American outdoors. We celebrated that today, and I was proud to be one marcher in that parade. As the President signed the legislation, I was thinking of some gesture I could make to him or gift I could give him that would be appropriate so as to recognize, of all of the marchers in the parade, that he was the most consequential because, if he had not supported it, it wouldn't have happened. So I took with me a walking stick that was as tall as I am--about his size--that was given to me in 1978 when I was walking across Tennessee in my campaign for the Governor of Tennessee. I walked in a red and black shirt--a lot like the mask I wear today. People would give me walking sticks, and this was a walking stick that was carved by a Smoky Mountain craftsman. It is a mountain man walking stick. It is, really, a beautiful stick. I gave it to the President. He looked a little surprised, and then he took it and walked away with it. I said: Mr. President, you may find this will come in handy during the rest of the year. He said: I think it will. So that was a heartfelt gesture to the President. I am glad he liked it. I know the people in the Great Smoky Mountains like this piece of legislation and are grateful for his work on it. I hope he keeps that walking stick as a token of respect for his support and appreciation for what he has done to help this whole parade of Senators on both sides of the aisle create this new law. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ALEXANDER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4702 | null | 1,054 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to address the issues regarding the COVID crisis. Now, as we know, the COVID crisis is a public health crisis which has led to an economic crisis and, in turn, an educational crisis. Today, I am going to speak about an aspect of the economic crisis--specifically State and local governments, which have had to shut down their economy and, in turn, have lost all the tax revenue they otherwise would receive and, because they have lost that tax revenue, have put the jobs of firefighters, police officers, teachers, sanitation workers, and other essential frontline workers at risk. So let me proceed. Senate Republicans have unveiled a proposal for a second line of support for American families and small businesses as our Nation continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus is an unprecedented challenge, but we shall overcome, and the HEALS Act attempts to do that. The introduction of this proposal signals Republicans' commitment to seeing America through this challenging time, as was with the CARES Act. The ultimate safety of the people of Louisiana and the United States are my top priority, and the HEALS Act, as with all major bills, is a starting point of negotiations to build consensus among Members of both parties for the best path forward. The HEALS Act includes stimulus checks for Americans, support for small businesses, and billions to help schools reopen. While these are critically important to economic recovery, so, too, are the essential services provided by States and local communities. I am talking about police officers, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers, and other municipal workers. Because of this economic lockdown, State and local governments have seen their tax base erode, which threatens their ability to keep these very people we need employed--these people who keep our communities running. I don't want to see, for example, a situation where cities slash police budgets and force layoffs of those who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. That is why Congress should include additional relief for State and local communities in this relief package. Senator Bob Menendez--and his staff has been a wonderful team to work with--and I have offered a bipartisan proposal called the SMART Act to help communities through this pandemic. I am privileged to be joined today by Senator Menendez and Senator Collins to speak on its behalf. The SMART Act calls for $500 billion in funding for State and local governments, and it would be dispersed in thirds. One-third is based on a State's population. Clearly, California needs more than Alaska. One-third is based upon the COVID-19 impact. My State has had one of the highest per capita incidences of coronavirus infection. We have been terribly impacted. One-third is based upon revenue lost, which, again, my State, as well as the States of my colleagues, has been very impacted. It is a fair formula that prioritizes funding to the hardest hit. The need is great. S&P Global released a report detailing the State susceptibility to fiscal distress in a COVID-19 recession. There were 38 States that had a high or very high risk of economic exposure. S&P's findings echo a Moody's report that also predicted dire effects to States and cities if nothing is done. Moody's found that 34 States will see tax revenue fall by double-digit percentage points, the worst of which are Alaska falling 80 percent, Louisiana at 46 percent, and North Dakota at 44 percent. According to the National Association of Counties, local communities--not States; local communities--anticipate a $202 billion impact to budgets through 2021. Their report shows that 71 percent of counties have delayed capital investments, including infrastructure and economic development projects; 68 percent have cut or delayed county services--or parish services in the case of Louisiana--human services, public safety, and community development support; and 25 percent have cut the county workforce. Moody's estimates that 1.3 million have already been laid off, and an estimated 1.4 million more State and parish county workers and municipal workers will be laid off in the coming fiscal year. Sixty-six percent of counties receiving CARES Act coronavirus relief indicate that the funding will not cover the COVID-19 budget or they are uncertain if the budgetary impacts will be covered. This is the impact of what has happened. By the way, we spoke earlier of $202 billion, and this is how the breakdown is in terms of lost revenue and lost State funding, et cetera. The impact upon State and county and municipal governments is huge. All told, the National Association of Counties predicts a loss of 4.9 million jobs and $344 billion lost in GDP. It does not have to be that way. We can save jobs for police officers, firefighters, teachers, and others by including State and local support in the act we are considering. As I mentioned before, Louisiana, my State, is facing serious shortfalls. We are still struggling with a second wave of COVID cases. Yesterday, we had the No. 1 per capita incidence of coronavirus. The State is having to continue in a phase 2 lockdown, which strains not only my folks in Louisiana but also the revenue of the local communities where they would otherwise spend their money. Folks back home know the consequences if they don't receive support. There were 22 parish presidents who signed a letter supporting the SMART Act. They wrote: As elected leaders with parish populations ranging from over 400,000 to 18,000, the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for all local governments not only within Louisiana, but nationally. The extreme loss of tax revenues, which provide for essential services, coupled with unforeseen costs brought onto us by the response to COVID-19 pandemic, has the potential to have an extremely detrimental effect on our role to provide for the citizens of our parishes. I received a letter from more than 80 mayors across my State giving ``their strong support and thanks'' for efforts to pass the SMART Act because they know I am working to deliver the support they need for their communities or mutual constituents. And mayors ranging from cities as large as Shreveport to as small as Glenmora and Athens wrote: The SMART Act would provide funding for municipal economic recovery that will support the reopening of businesses and allow Louisiana to move forward. We are grateful for Senator Cassidy's bipartisan efforts and for his longstanding partnership with Louisiana's governments. The same sentiments have been echoed by Louisiana's Chamber of Commerce. I understand concerns about spending money on State and local government. Some are worried the money will be used to bail out poor management decisions and overly generous and unfunded pension plans. I share those concerns, which is why the SMART Act includes specific provisions prohibiting spending in those areas. The SMART Act money replaces lost revenue caused by COVID-19 and nothing more. A city or parish or county would have to show their books and show that they have lost revenue relative to a year ago before they would be eligible to receive funding from this. I understand concerns about spending, but the cost of doing nothing is worse. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell spoke on the State and local funding needs, saying that while costly, it would be ``worth it if it helps avoid long-term damage and leaves us with a stronger economy.'' Congress should not allow police officers, firefighters, first responders, teachers, sanitation workers, and others to lose their jobs by the millions at a time when our country needs them most. The United States cannot fully recover economically if local communities cannot provide basic services, allowing commerce to flow. As I end, I commend my colleagues on the work thus far on the HEALS Act. More work is left to be done, and I look forward to working with others in this Chamber in the coming days to strengthen this bill even further and finding a common path forward with our Democratic colleagues. We cannot let Americans down in this time of tremendous need. By working together, we can deliver the support they need, and we will be stronger as a nation for having done so I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASSIDY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4706 | null | 1,055 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to address the issues regarding the COVID crisis. Now, as we know, the COVID crisis is a public health crisis which has led to an economic crisis and, in turn, an educational crisis. Today, I am going to speak about an aspect of the economic crisis--specifically State and local governments, which have had to shut down their economy and, in turn, have lost all the tax revenue they otherwise would receive and, because they have lost that tax revenue, have put the jobs of firefighters, police officers, teachers, sanitation workers, and other essential frontline workers at risk. So let me proceed. Senate Republicans have unveiled a proposal for a second line of support for American families and small businesses as our Nation continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus is an unprecedented challenge, but we shall overcome, and the HEALS Act attempts to do that. The introduction of this proposal signals Republicans' commitment to seeing America through this challenging time, as was with the CARES Act. The ultimate safety of the people of Louisiana and the United States are my top priority, and the HEALS Act, as with all major bills, is a starting point of negotiations to build consensus among Members of both parties for the best path forward. The HEALS Act includes stimulus checks for Americans, support for small businesses, and billions to help schools reopen. While these are critically important to economic recovery, so, too, are the essential services provided by States and local communities. I am talking about police officers, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers, and other municipal workers. Because of this economic lockdown, State and local governments have seen their tax base erode, which threatens their ability to keep these very people we need employed--these people who keep our communities running. I don't want to see, for example, a situation where cities slash police budgets and force layoffs of those who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. That is why Congress should include additional relief for State and local communities in this relief package. Senator Bob Menendez--and his staff has been a wonderful team to work with--and I have offered a bipartisan proposal called the SMART Act to help communities through this pandemic. I am privileged to be joined today by Senator Menendez and Senator Collins to speak on its behalf. The SMART Act calls for $500 billion in funding for State and local governments, and it would be dispersed in thirds. One-third is based on a State's population. Clearly, California needs more than Alaska. One-third is based upon the COVID-19 impact. My State has had one of the highest per capita incidences of coronavirus infection. We have been terribly impacted. One-third is based upon revenue lost, which, again, my State, as well as the States of my colleagues, has been very impacted. It is a fair formula that prioritizes funding to the hardest hit. The need is great. S&P Global released a report detailing the State susceptibility to fiscal distress in a COVID-19 recession. There were 38 States that had a high or very high risk of economic exposure. S&P's findings echo a Moody's report that also predicted dire effects to States and cities if nothing is done. Moody's found that 34 States will see tax revenue fall by double-digit percentage points, the worst of which are Alaska falling 80 percent, Louisiana at 46 percent, and North Dakota at 44 percent. According to the National Association of Counties, local communities--not States; local communities--anticipate a $202 billion impact to budgets through 2021. Their report shows that 71 percent of counties have delayed capital investments, including infrastructure and economic development projects; 68 percent have cut or delayed county services--or parish services in the case of Louisiana--human services, public safety, and community development support; and 25 percent have cut the county workforce. Moody's estimates that 1.3 million have already been laid off, and an estimated 1.4 million more State and parish county workers and municipal workers will be laid off in the coming fiscal year. Sixty-six percent of counties receiving CARES Act coronavirus relief indicate that the funding will not cover the COVID-19 budget or they are uncertain if the budgetary impacts will be covered. This is the impact of what has happened. By the way, we spoke earlier of $202 billion, and this is how the breakdown is in terms of lost revenue and lost State funding, et cetera. The impact upon State and county and municipal governments is huge. All told, the National Association of Counties predicts a loss of 4.9 million jobs and $344 billion lost in GDP. It does not have to be that way. We can save jobs for police officers, firefighters, teachers, and others by including State and local support in the act we are considering. As I mentioned before, Louisiana, my State, is facing serious shortfalls. We are still struggling with a second wave of COVID cases. Yesterday, we had the No. 1 per capita incidence of coronavirus. The State is having to continue in a phase 2 lockdown, which strains not only my folks in Louisiana but also the revenue of the local communities where they would otherwise spend their money. Folks back home know the consequences if they don't receive support. There were 22 parish presidents who signed a letter supporting the SMART Act. They wrote: As elected leaders with parish populations ranging from over 400,000 to 18,000, the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for all local governments not only within Louisiana, but nationally. The extreme loss of tax revenues, which provide for essential services, coupled with unforeseen costs brought onto us by the response to COVID-19 pandemic, has the potential to have an extremely detrimental effect on our role to provide for the citizens of our parishes. I received a letter from more than 80 mayors across my State giving ``their strong support and thanks'' for efforts to pass the SMART Act because they know I am working to deliver the support they need for their communities or mutual constituents. And mayors ranging from cities as large as Shreveport to as small as Glenmora and Athens wrote: The SMART Act would provide funding for municipal economic recovery that will support the reopening of businesses and allow Louisiana to move forward. We are grateful for Senator Cassidy's bipartisan efforts and for his longstanding partnership with Louisiana's governments. The same sentiments have been echoed by Louisiana's Chamber of Commerce. I understand concerns about spending money on State and local government. Some are worried the money will be used to bail out poor management decisions and overly generous and unfunded pension plans. I share those concerns, which is why the SMART Act includes specific provisions prohibiting spending in those areas. The SMART Act money replaces lost revenue caused by COVID-19 and nothing more. A city or parish or county would have to show their books and show that they have lost revenue relative to a year ago before they would be eligible to receive funding from this. I understand concerns about spending, but the cost of doing nothing is worse. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell spoke on the State and local funding needs, saying that while costly, it would be ``worth it if it helps avoid long-term damage and leaves us with a stronger economy.'' Congress should not allow police officers, firefighters, first responders, teachers, sanitation workers, and others to lose their jobs by the millions at a time when our country needs them most. The United States cannot fully recover economically if local communities cannot provide basic services, allowing commerce to flow. As I end, I commend my colleagues on the work thus far on the HEALS Act. More work is left to be done, and I look forward to working with others in this Chamber in the coming days to strengthen this bill even further and finding a common path forward with our Democratic colleagues. We cannot let Americans down in this time of tremendous need. By working together, we can deliver the support they need, and we will be stronger as a nation for having done so I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASSIDY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4706 | null | 1,056 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I rise to address the issues regarding the COVID crisis. Now, as we know, the COVID crisis is a public health crisis which has led to an economic crisis and, in turn, an educational crisis. Today, I am going to speak about an aspect of the economic crisis--specifically State and local governments, which have had to shut down their economy and, in turn, have lost all the tax revenue they otherwise would receive and, because they have lost that tax revenue, have put the jobs of firefighters, police officers, teachers, sanitation workers, and other essential frontline workers at risk. So let me proceed. Senate Republicans have unveiled a proposal for a second line of support for American families and small businesses as our Nation continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus is an unprecedented challenge, but we shall overcome, and the HEALS Act attempts to do that. The introduction of this proposal signals Republicans' commitment to seeing America through this challenging time, as was with the CARES Act. The ultimate safety of the people of Louisiana and the United States are my top priority, and the HEALS Act, as with all major bills, is a starting point of negotiations to build consensus among Members of both parties for the best path forward. The HEALS Act includes stimulus checks for Americans, support for small businesses, and billions to help schools reopen. While these are critically important to economic recovery, so, too, are the essential services provided by States and local communities. I am talking about police officers, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers, and other municipal workers. Because of this economic lockdown, State and local governments have seen their tax base erode, which threatens their ability to keep these very people we need employed--these people who keep our communities running. I don't want to see, for example, a situation where cities slash police budgets and force layoffs of those who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. That is why Congress should include additional relief for State and local communities in this relief package. Senator Bob Menendez--and his staff has been a wonderful team to work with--and I have offered a bipartisan proposal called the SMART Act to help communities through this pandemic. I am privileged to be joined today by Senator Menendez and Senator Collins to speak on its behalf. The SMART Act calls for $500 billion in funding for State and local governments, and it would be dispersed in thirds. One-third is based on a State's population. Clearly, California needs more than Alaska. One-third is based upon the COVID-19 impact. My State has had one of the highest per capita incidences of coronavirus infection. We have been terribly impacted. One-third is based upon revenue lost, which, again, my State, as well as the States of my colleagues, has been very impacted. It is a fair formula that prioritizes funding to the hardest hit. The need is great. S&P Global released a report detailing the State susceptibility to fiscal distress in a COVID-19 recession. There were 38 States that had a high or very high risk of economic exposure. S&P's findings echo a Moody's report that also predicted dire effects to States and cities if nothing is done. Moody's found that 34 States will see tax revenue fall by double-digit percentage points, the worst of which are Alaska falling 80 percent, Louisiana at 46 percent, and North Dakota at 44 percent. According to the National Association of Counties, local communities--not States; local communities--anticipate a $202 billion impact to budgets through 2021. Their report shows that 71 percent of counties have delayed capital investments, including infrastructure and economic development projects; 68 percent have cut or delayed county services--or parish services in the case of Louisiana--human services, public safety, and community development support; and 25 percent have cut the county workforce. Moody's estimates that 1.3 million have already been laid off, and an estimated 1.4 million more State and parish county workers and municipal workers will be laid off in the coming fiscal year. Sixty-six percent of counties receiving CARES Act coronavirus relief indicate that the funding will not cover the COVID-19 budget or they are uncertain if the budgetary impacts will be covered. This is the impact of what has happened. By the way, we spoke earlier of $202 billion, and this is how the breakdown is in terms of lost revenue and lost State funding, et cetera. The impact upon State and county and municipal governments is huge. All told, the National Association of Counties predicts a loss of 4.9 million jobs and $344 billion lost in GDP. It does not have to be that way. We can save jobs for police officers, firefighters, teachers, and others by including State and local support in the act we are considering. As I mentioned before, Louisiana, my State, is facing serious shortfalls. We are still struggling with a second wave of COVID cases. Yesterday, we had the No. 1 per capita incidence of coronavirus. The State is having to continue in a phase 2 lockdown, which strains not only my folks in Louisiana but also the revenue of the local communities where they would otherwise spend their money. Folks back home know the consequences if they don't receive support. There were 22 parish presidents who signed a letter supporting the SMART Act. They wrote: As elected leaders with parish populations ranging from over 400,000 to 18,000, the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for all local governments not only within Louisiana, but nationally. The extreme loss of tax revenues, which provide for essential services, coupled with unforeseen costs brought onto us by the response to COVID-19 pandemic, has the potential to have an extremely detrimental effect on our role to provide for the citizens of our parishes. I received a letter from more than 80 mayors across my State giving ``their strong support and thanks'' for efforts to pass the SMART Act because they know I am working to deliver the support they need for their communities or mutual constituents. And mayors ranging from cities as large as Shreveport to as small as Glenmora and Athens wrote: The SMART Act would provide funding for municipal economic recovery that will support the reopening of businesses and allow Louisiana to move forward. We are grateful for Senator Cassidy's bipartisan efforts and for his longstanding partnership with Louisiana's governments. The same sentiments have been echoed by Louisiana's Chamber of Commerce. I understand concerns about spending money on State and local government. Some are worried the money will be used to bail out poor management decisions and overly generous and unfunded pension plans. I share those concerns, which is why the SMART Act includes specific provisions prohibiting spending in those areas. The SMART Act money replaces lost revenue caused by COVID-19 and nothing more. A city or parish or county would have to show their books and show that they have lost revenue relative to a year ago before they would be eligible to receive funding from this. I understand concerns about spending, but the cost of doing nothing is worse. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell spoke on the State and local funding needs, saying that while costly, it would be ``worth it if it helps avoid long-term damage and leaves us with a stronger economy.'' Congress should not allow police officers, firefighters, first responders, teachers, sanitation workers, and others to lose their jobs by the millions at a time when our country needs them most. The United States cannot fully recover economically if local communities cannot provide basic services, allowing commerce to flow. As I end, I commend my colleagues on the work thus far on the HEALS Act. More work is left to be done, and I look forward to working with others in this Chamber in the coming days to strengthen this bill even further and finding a common path forward with our Democratic colleagues. We cannot let Americans down in this time of tremendous need. By working together, we can deliver the support they need, and we will be stronger as a nation for having done so I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASSIDY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4706 | null | 1,057 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am going to briefly remove my mask. We are about 1 week into baseball season. I will lighten this up a little bit. We are 1 week into baseball season. Some of us here are huge baseball fans. This is the home of the Nationals--home of the world championship Washington Nationals. The best two pitchers come from the Detroit Tigers, my favorite team. For those who might not have been watching baseball over the weekend, there is a young guy who is a relief pitcher for the Tigers. His name is Tyler Alexander. He was brought in in relief in the second or third inning and struck out nine straight bats. He struck out the first nine batters he faced. I think one other person has done that in Major League history. So, as we gather here today to figure out how to get out of this mess, his job that day was to try to figure out how to get out of another mess, and my hope is that our efforts here in the Senate, the House, and the White House will be as successful as were his. I am happy to follow today our friend from Maine; our colleague from New Jersey; and you, Mr. President, as the Senator from Louisiana, in actually pointing to something we can agree on. People are always saying to me and, I know, to my colleagues when we go home: Can't you guys and gals ever agree on anything? Well, as it turns out, a number of us agree that States and local governments could use some help--some additional help beyond that which we have already provided. That is a good thing. We don't have to pit blue States against red States. We can actually work together, and in this case we are. Very few of us actually come here and start our first elected job being in the U.S. Senate--some, but not a lot. A number of people are former mayors, former Governors, former Representatives. But every now and then, somebody slips through without ever having run for elected office. I am a former State treasurer. People call me a recovering Governor, but I am really a recovering State treasurer. I was elected State treasurer when I was 29. When I was elected State treasurer and took my oath, our State had the worst credit rating in the country. I was elected in 1976--the same year that a Republican named Pete du Pont was elected Governor of our State. He turned out to be a terrific Governor at a time when we needed one. He was a good mentor for me and someone I always looked up to, and I hope I was a good partner to him and Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to pull our State out of a real mess. Not only did we have the worst credit rating in the country that year--1977, actually--we had the worst credit rating, we had no pension fund, we had no rainy day fund, and we had the lowest start rate of new businesses of any State in America. We couldn't balance our budgets if we had to. In order to actually have money to spend, we issued revenue anticipation notes. When I got to the State treasurer's office, I said: What is a revenue anticipation note? They said: That is the way the State borrows money until tax monies come in the following April, so that we can actually pay payroll and pensions and stuff like that. I said: You are kidding. They said: No, we are not. That was then; this is now. When Pete du Pont was our Governor and I was treasurer, we had a bipartisan legislature. The house and senate were split between Democrats and Republicans. But we created a rainy day fund and never invaded it. We created and fully amortized our pension fund. We had no pension fund. We fully amortized it within about 10 years. We did all kinds of things, all kinds of budget reforms in order to get us on the right track. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say the States got themselves in a mess and they are going to have to get out of it. They said they can file for bankruptcy; they are badly managed. Let me just say, my State is a AAA State. We got a AAA rating when I was Governor, and we never lost it to this day. Most States are better run fiscally than the Federal Government. You only have to look at the way we spend money around here--not just in the middle of a pandemic. Look at the year before the pandemic, at how much our Nation's deficit and debt increased. But even fiscally responsible, well-managed States like Delaware and some other States that are represented on this floor right here are finding themselves in a situation that one could not have imagined just a few months ago. That is especially true when we have an administration that is simultaneously asking State and local governments to shoulder the burden of responding to the coronavirus. Leader McConnell and Secretary Mnuchin say that States don't need more money because they haven't used the coronavirus relief funds that Congress provided in the CARES Act. Well, unfortunately, that is just not true. A survey conducted by the National Association of State Budget Officers shows that States have already allocated nearly 75 percent of these funds already to fight the pandemic and help struggling families and small businesses through this crisis. If States across this country see a resurgence in infection rates, the cost of addressing the health and economic crisis is not going down; it is going up. At the same time that the cost of addressing this pandemic has skyrocketed, businesses are shuttered, and tourism and commerce have come, in many places, to a standstill. That means that hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues for States and local governments have occurred. Delaware is certainly not alone. So let me be very clear. This is not a red State or a blue State problem; it is a United States problem. It is not a consequence of poor management either. Over the past couple months, weeks, I have had conversations, as my colleagues know, with dozens of them on both sides of the aisle about what States and local communities across our country are facing as a result of COVID-19. In those conversations with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, time and again I have heard a familiar refrain: The pandemic has caused State and local government revenues to plummet in a way that none of us have ever experienced or would have or could have foreseen. Income tax revenues have fallen and unemployment numbers have reachedunprecedented levels over the course of just a few months. Delaying Federal tax deadlines--while it was the right thing to do--has wreaked havoc on the ability of States to balance their budgets. Sales tax collections and revenue from tourism, gas taxes, and tolls have dried up as the virus has compelled many people to just stay at home. And States highly dependent on oil and gas revenues, as the Presiding Officer's State is, have been doubly hit by the pandemic and turmoil in global energy markets. Unlike the Federal Government, State and local governments have to balance their budgets. This means that Governors, State legislators, and local officials--mayors, city and county councils--have had no choice but to make deep cuts that will inevitably hurt the ability of their communities to recover. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Let me say that again. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Those are not private sector jobs. Those are not Federal Government jobs. Those are just State and local, county jobs: teachers, firefighters, police, and more. This staggering statistic is bad enough on its own, but what does it mean if you aren't one of the one in every eight American workers who is employed by a State or local government? Here is what it means. Cuts to education budgets means larger class sizes. It means fewer bus drivers. It means fewer custodians at a time when schools are struggling to figure out how they will reopen safely this fall. I talked earlier this week to a number of our finest school superintendents in Delaware. We talked about--they are struggling--how to open up and reopen schools. As it turns out, they are going to have to hire more bus drivers if schools reopen--more bus drivers because kids will be separated. They have to separate kids. You can't put as many kids on the school bus. They are going to have to hire substitute teachers. If somebody gets sick and they are unable to come to work, they will have to hire a substitute teacher and pay for them as well. And for nurses, it is the same way. To be there to help administer--whether it is taking people's temperatures or administering tests and that kind of thing, we are going to need more health professionals in our schools rather than fewer. Cuts to first responder budgets mean people must wait longer for EMTs and firefighters to arrive during emergency situations. Cuts in transportation budgets mean canceled or delayed infrastructure--transportation infrastructure projects--and fewer construction jobs when we are in the middle of the summer construction season. These cuts impact all of us and create a ripple effect across the broader economy. That is why economists across the political spectrum, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, agree that State and local budget cuts will weigh down our path to economic recovery, not just for a couple of weeks, not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. In fact, based on evidence from the last recession, one recent economic report found that every dollar in cuts cost the overall economy $1.50 to $2. That is one reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for additional Federal aid for States and for cities. The Chamber also recognizes that its lost revenue will force officials out of State and local levels to either miss payments or raise taxes in order to make up the shortfall. We know that this is impacting every part of our Nation. The longer we wait to get much needed assistance for our State and local governments, the more our communities will suffer and the more at risk we put our entire economy. We are here. We are sort of like almost in overtime. In fact, we are in overtime when it comes to the supplemental unemployment insurance benefits having expired. We don't have time to wait. Let's pass long overdue assistance. Let's pass it so that our hometowns and our States don't take an even bigger hit that we can't afford but a hit that is avoided. With that, I want to yield to some of my colleagues who are here to present their own perspectives, and we look forward to hearing from them. The first one, right out of the starting block, is a former Governor of New Hampshire--like me, a recovering Governor--and a terrific U.S. Senator, Maggie Hassan. I am happy to yield the floor to Senator Maggie Hassan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4709 | null | 1,058 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am going to briefly remove my mask. We are about 1 week into baseball season. I will lighten this up a little bit. We are 1 week into baseball season. Some of us here are huge baseball fans. This is the home of the Nationals--home of the world championship Washington Nationals. The best two pitchers come from the Detroit Tigers, my favorite team. For those who might not have been watching baseball over the weekend, there is a young guy who is a relief pitcher for the Tigers. His name is Tyler Alexander. He was brought in in relief in the second or third inning and struck out nine straight bats. He struck out the first nine batters he faced. I think one other person has done that in Major League history. So, as we gather here today to figure out how to get out of this mess, his job that day was to try to figure out how to get out of another mess, and my hope is that our efforts here in the Senate, the House, and the White House will be as successful as were his. I am happy to follow today our friend from Maine; our colleague from New Jersey; and you, Mr. President, as the Senator from Louisiana, in actually pointing to something we can agree on. People are always saying to me and, I know, to my colleagues when we go home: Can't you guys and gals ever agree on anything? Well, as it turns out, a number of us agree that States and local governments could use some help--some additional help beyond that which we have already provided. That is a good thing. We don't have to pit blue States against red States. We can actually work together, and in this case we are. Very few of us actually come here and start our first elected job being in the U.S. Senate--some, but not a lot. A number of people are former mayors, former Governors, former Representatives. But every now and then, somebody slips through without ever having run for elected office. I am a former State treasurer. People call me a recovering Governor, but I am really a recovering State treasurer. I was elected State treasurer when I was 29. When I was elected State treasurer and took my oath, our State had the worst credit rating in the country. I was elected in 1976--the same year that a Republican named Pete du Pont was elected Governor of our State. He turned out to be a terrific Governor at a time when we needed one. He was a good mentor for me and someone I always looked up to, and I hope I was a good partner to him and Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to pull our State out of a real mess. Not only did we have the worst credit rating in the country that year--1977, actually--we had the worst credit rating, we had no pension fund, we had no rainy day fund, and we had the lowest start rate of new businesses of any State in America. We couldn't balance our budgets if we had to. In order to actually have money to spend, we issued revenue anticipation notes. When I got to the State treasurer's office, I said: What is a revenue anticipation note? They said: That is the way the State borrows money until tax monies come in the following April, so that we can actually pay payroll and pensions and stuff like that. I said: You are kidding. They said: No, we are not. That was then; this is now. When Pete du Pont was our Governor and I was treasurer, we had a bipartisan legislature. The house and senate were split between Democrats and Republicans. But we created a rainy day fund and never invaded it. We created and fully amortized our pension fund. We had no pension fund. We fully amortized it within about 10 years. We did all kinds of things, all kinds of budget reforms in order to get us on the right track. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say the States got themselves in a mess and they are going to have to get out of it. They said they can file for bankruptcy; they are badly managed. Let me just say, my State is a AAA State. We got a AAA rating when I was Governor, and we never lost it to this day. Most States are better run fiscally than the Federal Government. You only have to look at the way we spend money around here--not just in the middle of a pandemic. Look at the year before the pandemic, at how much our Nation's deficit and debt increased. But even fiscally responsible, well-managed States like Delaware and some other States that are represented on this floor right here are finding themselves in a situation that one could not have imagined just a few months ago. That is especially true when we have an administration that is simultaneously asking State and local governments to shoulder the burden of responding to the coronavirus. Leader McConnell and Secretary Mnuchin say that States don't need more money because they haven't used the coronavirus relief funds that Congress provided in the CARES Act. Well, unfortunately, that is just not true. A survey conducted by the National Association of State Budget Officers shows that States have already allocated nearly 75 percent of these funds already to fight the pandemic and help struggling families and small businesses through this crisis. If States across this country see a resurgence in infection rates, the cost of addressing the health and economic crisis is not going down; it is going up. At the same time that the cost of addressing this pandemic has skyrocketed, businesses are shuttered, and tourism and commerce have come, in many places, to a standstill. That means that hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues for States and local governments have occurred. Delaware is certainly not alone. So let me be very clear. This is not a red State or a blue State problem; it is a United States problem. It is not a consequence of poor management either. Over the past couple months, weeks, I have had conversations, as my colleagues know, with dozens of them on both sides of the aisle about what States and local communities across our country are facing as a result of COVID-19. In those conversations with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, time and again I have heard a familiar refrain: The pandemic has caused State and local government revenues to plummet in a way that none of us have ever experienced or would have or could have foreseen. Income tax revenues have fallen and unemployment numbers have reachedunprecedented levels over the course of just a few months. Delaying Federal tax deadlines--while it was the right thing to do--has wreaked havoc on the ability of States to balance their budgets. Sales tax collections and revenue from tourism, gas taxes, and tolls have dried up as the virus has compelled many people to just stay at home. And States highly dependent on oil and gas revenues, as the Presiding Officer's State is, have been doubly hit by the pandemic and turmoil in global energy markets. Unlike the Federal Government, State and local governments have to balance their budgets. This means that Governors, State legislators, and local officials--mayors, city and county councils--have had no choice but to make deep cuts that will inevitably hurt the ability of their communities to recover. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Let me say that again. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Those are not private sector jobs. Those are not Federal Government jobs. Those are just State and local, county jobs: teachers, firefighters, police, and more. This staggering statistic is bad enough on its own, but what does it mean if you aren't one of the one in every eight American workers who is employed by a State or local government? Here is what it means. Cuts to education budgets means larger class sizes. It means fewer bus drivers. It means fewer custodians at a time when schools are struggling to figure out how they will reopen safely this fall. I talked earlier this week to a number of our finest school superintendents in Delaware. We talked about--they are struggling--how to open up and reopen schools. As it turns out, they are going to have to hire more bus drivers if schools reopen--more bus drivers because kids will be separated. They have to separate kids. You can't put as many kids on the school bus. They are going to have to hire substitute teachers. If somebody gets sick and they are unable to come to work, they will have to hire a substitute teacher and pay for them as well. And for nurses, it is the same way. To be there to help administer--whether it is taking people's temperatures or administering tests and that kind of thing, we are going to need more health professionals in our schools rather than fewer. Cuts to first responder budgets mean people must wait longer for EMTs and firefighters to arrive during emergency situations. Cuts in transportation budgets mean canceled or delayed infrastructure--transportation infrastructure projects--and fewer construction jobs when we are in the middle of the summer construction season. These cuts impact all of us and create a ripple effect across the broader economy. That is why economists across the political spectrum, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, agree that State and local budget cuts will weigh down our path to economic recovery, not just for a couple of weeks, not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. In fact, based on evidence from the last recession, one recent economic report found that every dollar in cuts cost the overall economy $1.50 to $2. That is one reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for additional Federal aid for States and for cities. The Chamber also recognizes that its lost revenue will force officials out of State and local levels to either miss payments or raise taxes in order to make up the shortfall. We know that this is impacting every part of our Nation. The longer we wait to get much needed assistance for our State and local governments, the more our communities will suffer and the more at risk we put our entire economy. We are here. We are sort of like almost in overtime. In fact, we are in overtime when it comes to the supplemental unemployment insurance benefits having expired. We don't have time to wait. Let's pass long overdue assistance. Let's pass it so that our hometowns and our States don't take an even bigger hit that we can't afford but a hit that is avoided. With that, I want to yield to some of my colleagues who are here to present their own perspectives, and we look forward to hearing from them. The first one, right out of the starting block, is a former Governor of New Hampshire--like me, a recovering Governor--and a terrific U.S. Senator, Maggie Hassan. I am happy to yield the floor to Senator Maggie Hassan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4709 | null | 1,059 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am going to briefly remove my mask. We are about 1 week into baseball season. I will lighten this up a little bit. We are 1 week into baseball season. Some of us here are huge baseball fans. This is the home of the Nationals--home of the world championship Washington Nationals. The best two pitchers come from the Detroit Tigers, my favorite team. For those who might not have been watching baseball over the weekend, there is a young guy who is a relief pitcher for the Tigers. His name is Tyler Alexander. He was brought in in relief in the second or third inning and struck out nine straight bats. He struck out the first nine batters he faced. I think one other person has done that in Major League history. So, as we gather here today to figure out how to get out of this mess, his job that day was to try to figure out how to get out of another mess, and my hope is that our efforts here in the Senate, the House, and the White House will be as successful as were his. I am happy to follow today our friend from Maine; our colleague from New Jersey; and you, Mr. President, as the Senator from Louisiana, in actually pointing to something we can agree on. People are always saying to me and, I know, to my colleagues when we go home: Can't you guys and gals ever agree on anything? Well, as it turns out, a number of us agree that States and local governments could use some help--some additional help beyond that which we have already provided. That is a good thing. We don't have to pit blue States against red States. We can actually work together, and in this case we are. Very few of us actually come here and start our first elected job being in the U.S. Senate--some, but not a lot. A number of people are former mayors, former Governors, former Representatives. But every now and then, somebody slips through without ever having run for elected office. I am a former State treasurer. People call me a recovering Governor, but I am really a recovering State treasurer. I was elected State treasurer when I was 29. When I was elected State treasurer and took my oath, our State had the worst credit rating in the country. I was elected in 1976--the same year that a Republican named Pete du Pont was elected Governor of our State. He turned out to be a terrific Governor at a time when we needed one. He was a good mentor for me and someone I always looked up to, and I hope I was a good partner to him and Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to pull our State out of a real mess. Not only did we have the worst credit rating in the country that year--1977, actually--we had the worst credit rating, we had no pension fund, we had no rainy day fund, and we had the lowest start rate of new businesses of any State in America. We couldn't balance our budgets if we had to. In order to actually have money to spend, we issued revenue anticipation notes. When I got to the State treasurer's office, I said: What is a revenue anticipation note? They said: That is the way the State borrows money until tax monies come in the following April, so that we can actually pay payroll and pensions and stuff like that. I said: You are kidding. They said: No, we are not. That was then; this is now. When Pete du Pont was our Governor and I was treasurer, we had a bipartisan legislature. The house and senate were split between Democrats and Republicans. But we created a rainy day fund and never invaded it. We created and fully amortized our pension fund. We had no pension fund. We fully amortized it within about 10 years. We did all kinds of things, all kinds of budget reforms in order to get us on the right track. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say the States got themselves in a mess and they are going to have to get out of it. They said they can file for bankruptcy; they are badly managed. Let me just say, my State is a AAA State. We got a AAA rating when I was Governor, and we never lost it to this day. Most States are better run fiscally than the Federal Government. You only have to look at the way we spend money around here--not just in the middle of a pandemic. Look at the year before the pandemic, at how much our Nation's deficit and debt increased. But even fiscally responsible, well-managed States like Delaware and some other States that are represented on this floor right here are finding themselves in a situation that one could not have imagined just a few months ago. That is especially true when we have an administration that is simultaneously asking State and local governments to shoulder the burden of responding to the coronavirus. Leader McConnell and Secretary Mnuchin say that States don't need more money because they haven't used the coronavirus relief funds that Congress provided in the CARES Act. Well, unfortunately, that is just not true. A survey conducted by the National Association of State Budget Officers shows that States have already allocated nearly 75 percent of these funds already to fight the pandemic and help struggling families and small businesses through this crisis. If States across this country see a resurgence in infection rates, the cost of addressing the health and economic crisis is not going down; it is going up. At the same time that the cost of addressing this pandemic has skyrocketed, businesses are shuttered, and tourism and commerce have come, in many places, to a standstill. That means that hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues for States and local governments have occurred. Delaware is certainly not alone. So let me be very clear. This is not a red State or a blue State problem; it is a United States problem. It is not a consequence of poor management either. Over the past couple months, weeks, I have had conversations, as my colleagues know, with dozens of them on both sides of the aisle about what States and local communities across our country are facing as a result of COVID-19. In those conversations with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, time and again I have heard a familiar refrain: The pandemic has caused State and local government revenues to plummet in a way that none of us have ever experienced or would have or could have foreseen. Income tax revenues have fallen and unemployment numbers have reachedunprecedented levels over the course of just a few months. Delaying Federal tax deadlines--while it was the right thing to do--has wreaked havoc on the ability of States to balance their budgets. Sales tax collections and revenue from tourism, gas taxes, and tolls have dried up as the virus has compelled many people to just stay at home. And States highly dependent on oil and gas revenues, as the Presiding Officer's State is, have been doubly hit by the pandemic and turmoil in global energy markets. Unlike the Federal Government, State and local governments have to balance their budgets. This means that Governors, State legislators, and local officials--mayors, city and county councils--have had no choice but to make deep cuts that will inevitably hurt the ability of their communities to recover. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Let me say that again. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Those are not private sector jobs. Those are not Federal Government jobs. Those are just State and local, county jobs: teachers, firefighters, police, and more. This staggering statistic is bad enough on its own, but what does it mean if you aren't one of the one in every eight American workers who is employed by a State or local government? Here is what it means. Cuts to education budgets means larger class sizes. It means fewer bus drivers. It means fewer custodians at a time when schools are struggling to figure out how they will reopen safely this fall. I talked earlier this week to a number of our finest school superintendents in Delaware. We talked about--they are struggling--how to open up and reopen schools. As it turns out, they are going to have to hire more bus drivers if schools reopen--more bus drivers because kids will be separated. They have to separate kids. You can't put as many kids on the school bus. They are going to have to hire substitute teachers. If somebody gets sick and they are unable to come to work, they will have to hire a substitute teacher and pay for them as well. And for nurses, it is the same way. To be there to help administer--whether it is taking people's temperatures or administering tests and that kind of thing, we are going to need more health professionals in our schools rather than fewer. Cuts to first responder budgets mean people must wait longer for EMTs and firefighters to arrive during emergency situations. Cuts in transportation budgets mean canceled or delayed infrastructure--transportation infrastructure projects--and fewer construction jobs when we are in the middle of the summer construction season. These cuts impact all of us and create a ripple effect across the broader economy. That is why economists across the political spectrum, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, agree that State and local budget cuts will weigh down our path to economic recovery, not just for a couple of weeks, not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. In fact, based on evidence from the last recession, one recent economic report found that every dollar in cuts cost the overall economy $1.50 to $2. That is one reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for additional Federal aid for States and for cities. The Chamber also recognizes that its lost revenue will force officials out of State and local levels to either miss payments or raise taxes in order to make up the shortfall. We know that this is impacting every part of our Nation. The longer we wait to get much needed assistance for our State and local governments, the more our communities will suffer and the more at risk we put our entire economy. We are here. We are sort of like almost in overtime. In fact, we are in overtime when it comes to the supplemental unemployment insurance benefits having expired. We don't have time to wait. Let's pass long overdue assistance. Let's pass it so that our hometowns and our States don't take an even bigger hit that we can't afford but a hit that is avoided. With that, I want to yield to some of my colleagues who are here to present their own perspectives, and we look forward to hearing from them. The first one, right out of the starting block, is a former Governor of New Hampshire--like me, a recovering Governor--and a terrific U.S. Senator, Maggie Hassan. I am happy to yield the floor to Senator Maggie Hassan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4709 | null | 1,060 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am going to briefly remove my mask. We are about 1 week into baseball season. I will lighten this up a little bit. We are 1 week into baseball season. Some of us here are huge baseball fans. This is the home of the Nationals--home of the world championship Washington Nationals. The best two pitchers come from the Detroit Tigers, my favorite team. For those who might not have been watching baseball over the weekend, there is a young guy who is a relief pitcher for the Tigers. His name is Tyler Alexander. He was brought in in relief in the second or third inning and struck out nine straight bats. He struck out the first nine batters he faced. I think one other person has done that in Major League history. So, as we gather here today to figure out how to get out of this mess, his job that day was to try to figure out how to get out of another mess, and my hope is that our efforts here in the Senate, the House, and the White House will be as successful as were his. I am happy to follow today our friend from Maine; our colleague from New Jersey; and you, Mr. President, as the Senator from Louisiana, in actually pointing to something we can agree on. People are always saying to me and, I know, to my colleagues when we go home: Can't you guys and gals ever agree on anything? Well, as it turns out, a number of us agree that States and local governments could use some help--some additional help beyond that which we have already provided. That is a good thing. We don't have to pit blue States against red States. We can actually work together, and in this case we are. Very few of us actually come here and start our first elected job being in the U.S. Senate--some, but not a lot. A number of people are former mayors, former Governors, former Representatives. But every now and then, somebody slips through without ever having run for elected office. I am a former State treasurer. People call me a recovering Governor, but I am really a recovering State treasurer. I was elected State treasurer when I was 29. When I was elected State treasurer and took my oath, our State had the worst credit rating in the country. I was elected in 1976--the same year that a Republican named Pete du Pont was elected Governor of our State. He turned out to be a terrific Governor at a time when we needed one. He was a good mentor for me and someone I always looked up to, and I hope I was a good partner to him and Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to pull our State out of a real mess. Not only did we have the worst credit rating in the country that year--1977, actually--we had the worst credit rating, we had no pension fund, we had no rainy day fund, and we had the lowest start rate of new businesses of any State in America. We couldn't balance our budgets if we had to. In order to actually have money to spend, we issued revenue anticipation notes. When I got to the State treasurer's office, I said: What is a revenue anticipation note? They said: That is the way the State borrows money until tax monies come in the following April, so that we can actually pay payroll and pensions and stuff like that. I said: You are kidding. They said: No, we are not. That was then; this is now. When Pete du Pont was our Governor and I was treasurer, we had a bipartisan legislature. The house and senate were split between Democrats and Republicans. But we created a rainy day fund and never invaded it. We created and fully amortized our pension fund. We had no pension fund. We fully amortized it within about 10 years. We did all kinds of things, all kinds of budget reforms in order to get us on the right track. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say the States got themselves in a mess and they are going to have to get out of it. They said they can file for bankruptcy; they are badly managed. Let me just say, my State is a AAA State. We got a AAA rating when I was Governor, and we never lost it to this day. Most States are better run fiscally than the Federal Government. You only have to look at the way we spend money around here--not just in the middle of a pandemic. Look at the year before the pandemic, at how much our Nation's deficit and debt increased. But even fiscally responsible, well-managed States like Delaware and some other States that are represented on this floor right here are finding themselves in a situation that one could not have imagined just a few months ago. That is especially true when we have an administration that is simultaneously asking State and local governments to shoulder the burden of responding to the coronavirus. Leader McConnell and Secretary Mnuchin say that States don't need more money because they haven't used the coronavirus relief funds that Congress provided in the CARES Act. Well, unfortunately, that is just not true. A survey conducted by the National Association of State Budget Officers shows that States have already allocated nearly 75 percent of these funds already to fight the pandemic and help struggling families and small businesses through this crisis. If States across this country see a resurgence in infection rates, the cost of addressing the health and economic crisis is not going down; it is going up. At the same time that the cost of addressing this pandemic has skyrocketed, businesses are shuttered, and tourism and commerce have come, in many places, to a standstill. That means that hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues for States and local governments have occurred. Delaware is certainly not alone. So let me be very clear. This is not a red State or a blue State problem; it is a United States problem. It is not a consequence of poor management either. Over the past couple months, weeks, I have had conversations, as my colleagues know, with dozens of them on both sides of the aisle about what States and local communities across our country are facing as a result of COVID-19. In those conversations with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, time and again I have heard a familiar refrain: The pandemic has caused State and local government revenues to plummet in a way that none of us have ever experienced or would have or could have foreseen. Income tax revenues have fallen and unemployment numbers have reachedunprecedented levels over the course of just a few months. Delaying Federal tax deadlines--while it was the right thing to do--has wreaked havoc on the ability of States to balance their budgets. Sales tax collections and revenue from tourism, gas taxes, and tolls have dried up as the virus has compelled many people to just stay at home. And States highly dependent on oil and gas revenues, as the Presiding Officer's State is, have been doubly hit by the pandemic and turmoil in global energy markets. Unlike the Federal Government, State and local governments have to balance their budgets. This means that Governors, State legislators, and local officials--mayors, city and county councils--have had no choice but to make deep cuts that will inevitably hurt the ability of their communities to recover. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Let me say that again. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Those are not private sector jobs. Those are not Federal Government jobs. Those are just State and local, county jobs: teachers, firefighters, police, and more. This staggering statistic is bad enough on its own, but what does it mean if you aren't one of the one in every eight American workers who is employed by a State or local government? Here is what it means. Cuts to education budgets means larger class sizes. It means fewer bus drivers. It means fewer custodians at a time when schools are struggling to figure out how they will reopen safely this fall. I talked earlier this week to a number of our finest school superintendents in Delaware. We talked about--they are struggling--how to open up and reopen schools. As it turns out, they are going to have to hire more bus drivers if schools reopen--more bus drivers because kids will be separated. They have to separate kids. You can't put as many kids on the school bus. They are going to have to hire substitute teachers. If somebody gets sick and they are unable to come to work, they will have to hire a substitute teacher and pay for them as well. And for nurses, it is the same way. To be there to help administer--whether it is taking people's temperatures or administering tests and that kind of thing, we are going to need more health professionals in our schools rather than fewer. Cuts to first responder budgets mean people must wait longer for EMTs and firefighters to arrive during emergency situations. Cuts in transportation budgets mean canceled or delayed infrastructure--transportation infrastructure projects--and fewer construction jobs when we are in the middle of the summer construction season. These cuts impact all of us and create a ripple effect across the broader economy. That is why economists across the political spectrum, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, agree that State and local budget cuts will weigh down our path to economic recovery, not just for a couple of weeks, not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. In fact, based on evidence from the last recession, one recent economic report found that every dollar in cuts cost the overall economy $1.50 to $2. That is one reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for additional Federal aid for States and for cities. The Chamber also recognizes that its lost revenue will force officials out of State and local levels to either miss payments or raise taxes in order to make up the shortfall. We know that this is impacting every part of our Nation. The longer we wait to get much needed assistance for our State and local governments, the more our communities will suffer and the more at risk we put our entire economy. We are here. We are sort of like almost in overtime. In fact, we are in overtime when it comes to the supplemental unemployment insurance benefits having expired. We don't have time to wait. Let's pass long overdue assistance. Let's pass it so that our hometowns and our States don't take an even bigger hit that we can't afford but a hit that is avoided. With that, I want to yield to some of my colleagues who are here to present their own perspectives, and we look forward to hearing from them. The first one, right out of the starting block, is a former Governor of New Hampshire--like me, a recovering Governor--and a terrific U.S. Senator, Maggie Hassan. I am happy to yield the floor to Senator Maggie Hassan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4709 | null | 1,061 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am going to briefly remove my mask. We are about 1 week into baseball season. I will lighten this up a little bit. We are 1 week into baseball season. Some of us here are huge baseball fans. This is the home of the Nationals--home of the world championship Washington Nationals. The best two pitchers come from the Detroit Tigers, my favorite team. For those who might not have been watching baseball over the weekend, there is a young guy who is a relief pitcher for the Tigers. His name is Tyler Alexander. He was brought in in relief in the second or third inning and struck out nine straight bats. He struck out the first nine batters he faced. I think one other person has done that in Major League history. So, as we gather here today to figure out how to get out of this mess, his job that day was to try to figure out how to get out of another mess, and my hope is that our efforts here in the Senate, the House, and the White House will be as successful as were his. I am happy to follow today our friend from Maine; our colleague from New Jersey; and you, Mr. President, as the Senator from Louisiana, in actually pointing to something we can agree on. People are always saying to me and, I know, to my colleagues when we go home: Can't you guys and gals ever agree on anything? Well, as it turns out, a number of us agree that States and local governments could use some help--some additional help beyond that which we have already provided. That is a good thing. We don't have to pit blue States against red States. We can actually work together, and in this case we are. Very few of us actually come here and start our first elected job being in the U.S. Senate--some, but not a lot. A number of people are former mayors, former Governors, former Representatives. But every now and then, somebody slips through without ever having run for elected office. I am a former State treasurer. People call me a recovering Governor, but I am really a recovering State treasurer. I was elected State treasurer when I was 29. When I was elected State treasurer and took my oath, our State had the worst credit rating in the country. I was elected in 1976--the same year that a Republican named Pete du Pont was elected Governor of our State. He turned out to be a terrific Governor at a time when we needed one. He was a good mentor for me and someone I always looked up to, and I hope I was a good partner to him and Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to pull our State out of a real mess. Not only did we have the worst credit rating in the country that year--1977, actually--we had the worst credit rating, we had no pension fund, we had no rainy day fund, and we had the lowest start rate of new businesses of any State in America. We couldn't balance our budgets if we had to. In order to actually have money to spend, we issued revenue anticipation notes. When I got to the State treasurer's office, I said: What is a revenue anticipation note? They said: That is the way the State borrows money until tax monies come in the following April, so that we can actually pay payroll and pensions and stuff like that. I said: You are kidding. They said: No, we are not. That was then; this is now. When Pete du Pont was our Governor and I was treasurer, we had a bipartisan legislature. The house and senate were split between Democrats and Republicans. But we created a rainy day fund and never invaded it. We created and fully amortized our pension fund. We had no pension fund. We fully amortized it within about 10 years. We did all kinds of things, all kinds of budget reforms in order to get us on the right track. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say the States got themselves in a mess and they are going to have to get out of it. They said they can file for bankruptcy; they are badly managed. Let me just say, my State is a AAA State. We got a AAA rating when I was Governor, and we never lost it to this day. Most States are better run fiscally than the Federal Government. You only have to look at the way we spend money around here--not just in the middle of a pandemic. Look at the year before the pandemic, at how much our Nation's deficit and debt increased. But even fiscally responsible, well-managed States like Delaware and some other States that are represented on this floor right here are finding themselves in a situation that one could not have imagined just a few months ago. That is especially true when we have an administration that is simultaneously asking State and local governments to shoulder the burden of responding to the coronavirus. Leader McConnell and Secretary Mnuchin say that States don't need more money because they haven't used the coronavirus relief funds that Congress provided in the CARES Act. Well, unfortunately, that is just not true. A survey conducted by the National Association of State Budget Officers shows that States have already allocated nearly 75 percent of these funds already to fight the pandemic and help struggling families and small businesses through this crisis. If States across this country see a resurgence in infection rates, the cost of addressing the health and economic crisis is not going down; it is going up. At the same time that the cost of addressing this pandemic has skyrocketed, businesses are shuttered, and tourism and commerce have come, in many places, to a standstill. That means that hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues for States and local governments have occurred. Delaware is certainly not alone. So let me be very clear. This is not a red State or a blue State problem; it is a United States problem. It is not a consequence of poor management either. Over the past couple months, weeks, I have had conversations, as my colleagues know, with dozens of them on both sides of the aisle about what States and local communities across our country are facing as a result of COVID-19. In those conversations with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, time and again I have heard a familiar refrain: The pandemic has caused State and local government revenues to plummet in a way that none of us have ever experienced or would have or could have foreseen. Income tax revenues have fallen and unemployment numbers have reachedunprecedented levels over the course of just a few months. Delaying Federal tax deadlines--while it was the right thing to do--has wreaked havoc on the ability of States to balance their budgets. Sales tax collections and revenue from tourism, gas taxes, and tolls have dried up as the virus has compelled many people to just stay at home. And States highly dependent on oil and gas revenues, as the Presiding Officer's State is, have been doubly hit by the pandemic and turmoil in global energy markets. Unlike the Federal Government, State and local governments have to balance their budgets. This means that Governors, State legislators, and local officials--mayors, city and county councils--have had no choice but to make deep cuts that will inevitably hurt the ability of their communities to recover. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Let me say that again. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Those are not private sector jobs. Those are not Federal Government jobs. Those are just State and local, county jobs: teachers, firefighters, police, and more. This staggering statistic is bad enough on its own, but what does it mean if you aren't one of the one in every eight American workers who is employed by a State or local government? Here is what it means. Cuts to education budgets means larger class sizes. It means fewer bus drivers. It means fewer custodians at a time when schools are struggling to figure out how they will reopen safely this fall. I talked earlier this week to a number of our finest school superintendents in Delaware. We talked about--they are struggling--how to open up and reopen schools. As it turns out, they are going to have to hire more bus drivers if schools reopen--more bus drivers because kids will be separated. They have to separate kids. You can't put as many kids on the school bus. They are going to have to hire substitute teachers. If somebody gets sick and they are unable to come to work, they will have to hire a substitute teacher and pay for them as well. And for nurses, it is the same way. To be there to help administer--whether it is taking people's temperatures or administering tests and that kind of thing, we are going to need more health professionals in our schools rather than fewer. Cuts to first responder budgets mean people must wait longer for EMTs and firefighters to arrive during emergency situations. Cuts in transportation budgets mean canceled or delayed infrastructure--transportation infrastructure projects--and fewer construction jobs when we are in the middle of the summer construction season. These cuts impact all of us and create a ripple effect across the broader economy. That is why economists across the political spectrum, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, agree that State and local budget cuts will weigh down our path to economic recovery, not just for a couple of weeks, not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. In fact, based on evidence from the last recession, one recent economic report found that every dollar in cuts cost the overall economy $1.50 to $2. That is one reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for additional Federal aid for States and for cities. The Chamber also recognizes that its lost revenue will force officials out of State and local levels to either miss payments or raise taxes in order to make up the shortfall. We know that this is impacting every part of our Nation. The longer we wait to get much needed assistance for our State and local governments, the more our communities will suffer and the more at risk we put our entire economy. We are here. We are sort of like almost in overtime. In fact, we are in overtime when it comes to the supplemental unemployment insurance benefits having expired. We don't have time to wait. Let's pass long overdue assistance. Let's pass it so that our hometowns and our States don't take an even bigger hit that we can't afford but a hit that is avoided. With that, I want to yield to some of my colleagues who are here to present their own perspectives, and we look forward to hearing from them. The first one, right out of the starting block, is a former Governor of New Hampshire--like me, a recovering Governor--and a terrific U.S. Senator, Maggie Hassan. I am happy to yield the floor to Senator Maggie Hassan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4709 | null | 1,062 |
formal | bankers | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for a different topic. I am here for the 269th time with my increasingly battered ``Time to Wake Up'' poster to try to alert this Chamber to the threat of climate change--something, obviously, Louisiana knows very well--and to the forces that are blocking action on climate. In these climate speeches, I have talked often about the insidious encroachment on American Government of special interest power, which is what is behind all this climate denial and obstruction. It didn't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry's political forces used the cover of anonymous funding--what we call dark money--and they used phony front groups and clever propaganda to accomplish their aims. In effect, these fossil fuel political forces have run a covert operation against our own government. We observe the disturbances; we hear the rustling in the leaves; we see strange sites, but many of us haven't connected the dots. Those who are familiar with some of the elements may not put the whole story together. Some are so accustomed to this sinister behavior that they think it is normal. Some folks are like a city dweller in the jungle, needing a field biologist to identify the behaviors going on around them. Let me give you this field biologist's overview. We understand pretty well the crew of bad actors lurking behind climate denial. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly called out and reported on this web of denial funded by the fossil fuel industry. Investigative journalists like Jane Mayer and scholars like Naomi Oreskes have dug into this scheme. There is actually a robust academic subspecialty that analyzes this web of denial as a novel socioeconomic and political phenomenon. The covert special interest machinery behind that effort is not just dedicated to opposing climate legislation. Another covert operation it runs is chronicled in our recent Senate Democrats' report here that examines the bad actors behind the special interest Court capture operation. This operation has crept forward over years, even decades. The Republican Party is more the tool of this effort than its principal. Big donors are behind it. The goal here is to fashion for the donors a Supreme Court that will not just rule for but reset society's ground rules to favor the big donors behind the scheme. On yet another front, there has been recent public reporting revealing the bad actors rushing to stand up a new and improved Republican voter suppression apparatus as they start to panic about the November election. Earlier this year, longtime partisan court fixer Leonard Leo stepped down from his formal role as executive vice president of the Court capture command center at the Federalist Society. At the same time, a mysterious new project called the Honest Elections Project began voter suppression work in swing States like Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan. It ran ads accusing Democrats of cheating with mail-in ballots; it sent threatening letters to election officials challenging voter rolls; and it filed legal proceedings--lots of legal proceedings--arguing for more voting restrictions ahead of November. But in their hurry, they did a weak job of covering their tracks. Reporters quickly uncovered that the Honest Elections Project is a rebrand of the Judicial Education Project--a key cog in that same Leonard Leo's machine. As the Guardian reporters who broke the story observed, ``By having a hand in both voting litigation and the judges on the Federal bench, [Leo's] network could create a system where conservative donors have an avenue to both oppose voting rights and appoint judges who would back at that effort.'' Last, we pretty well know who funds the massive and often anonymous political operation that props up the Republican Party. Take 2016, for instance, when the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers' political operation spent $2 million on ads targeting viable Democratic candidates in just two Senate races--Ohio and Wisconsin Over a year before the election, they were already at work bombing those candidates. They didn't use their names. They hid behind phony front groups. It took years to dig this out, but that is what happened. The anonymously funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $40 million in 2016 and 2018 supporting Republican House and Senate candidates. Dark waves of untraceable dark money pour everywhere into Republican elections. From slips and leaks and investigative reporting, we can see enough overlap across these four efforts to state the general proposition: It is the same crew. If you look at it as a covert operation run by special interests against their own country, it has at least these four programs, but it has one set of interests behind it: They run the climate denial covert op. They run the Court capture covert op. They rushed out the voter suppression op. And, with their money, they captured the Republican Party to use as their front. If this operation were not covert, if it were obvious, if the press and the public could readily connect the dots, it wouldn't work. People would know it was fossil fuel polluter money. Theywould get the joke. That is why it has to be a covert operation, and that means it needs dark money--anonymous, untraceable funds. A virulent little galaxy of 501(c)(4) groups, shell corporations, donor trusts, and other screening tools has been crafted to anonymize the donors and hide the connections. Why? Because the blood pumping through this beast that gives it life is dark money. If we expose that secret blood flow, the whole beast shrivels up: no dark money, no covert operations. That is why efforts to expose the dark money donors provoke such hysterical reactions from the front groups and from their operatives and from their mouthpieces like the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I have experienced these hysterical reactions over and over. Indeed, there was one in the news today. This speech might provoke even another. But at the end of the day, as Americans, I believe we share the proposition that nothing could be more corrupting than large flows of anonymous money in politics. That sort of money doesn't even have to be spent to be corrupting. The mere threat of a political attack can do the job, and the donor saves the money. Or it could be a private promise of unlimited support. Once a political weapon is permissible, private threats and promises to use or withhold that weapon are inevitable, and they are inevitably corrupting. But don't think the prospect of corruption daunts the schemers. A political regime that allows their corruption and helps cover up their covert operations is precisely what the dark money donors want. Why else would we do nothing about climate change when it is so obvious? Why else would we ignore every respectable scientist in the field? Why else ignore warnings of financial meltdown looming from bankers and economists across the country, even across the world? Why else ignore the fires that are burning up Siberia, for Pete's sake, and, closer to home, the flood warnings along our coasts and the droughts and the floods and the storms across our States? When astronomers see celestial bodies behave inexplicably, they look for the dark star, the black hole that influences the behavior of the visible bodies. Dark money is the dark star, the evil star influencing Congress's behavior--or I should say misbehavior--on climate change. So a preview of coming attractions here: The dark-money-funded race to capture the Court is also a race by the schemers to establish a new constitutional doctrine protecting their dark money schemes. Such a doctrine is already being grown in the dark-money-funded ideological hothouses, a theory that dark money anonymity is protected by the First Amendment rights of association and petition--a theory giving powerful interests the constitutional right to run covert operations against their own government, leaving regular citizens beguiled or bewildered. That theory may seem ludicrous, and, indeed, this notion got only the one vote from Justice Thomas in Citizens United, but remember that Thomas is the dark money crowd's leading indicator on the Court. Don't scoff. This argument is now popping up all over the corporate rightwing. Twice so far I have had corporate entities from whom I requested information about their dark money dealings ``plead the First'' in response to my questions. The game is on, whether we realize it or not, and one of the stakes in the game is climate action. We cannot be idle about this. Groups that run covert operations against our own country are not to be trusted with that country's welfare. What a foul convergence it would be if the dark money schemers used dark money to fund a Court capture operation that delivered a Court-created doctrine hatched in dark money hothouses, protecting that dark money from disclosure for eternity, permanently etching into our Constitution this pathway of corruption. As I have said over and over, take away the corrupting dark money weaponry from the fossil fuel industry, and we solve climate change. We have lost a decade to Citizens United, the decision that gave this industry the weaponry to kill climate bipartisanship. It is a decade we and our children will rue having lost. Let's lose no more time. Let's, once and for all, root out the corrupting dark money machinery, expose its nefarious and crooked covert operations, shut it down, and start running a real democracy around here again. If we can't do this now, then let's pray for an election that lets us do it soon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4717 | null | 1,063 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for a different topic. I am here for the 269th time with my increasingly battered ``Time to Wake Up'' poster to try to alert this Chamber to the threat of climate change--something, obviously, Louisiana knows very well--and to the forces that are blocking action on climate. In these climate speeches, I have talked often about the insidious encroachment on American Government of special interest power, which is what is behind all this climate denial and obstruction. It didn't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry's political forces used the cover of anonymous funding--what we call dark money--and they used phony front groups and clever propaganda to accomplish their aims. In effect, these fossil fuel political forces have run a covert operation against our own government. We observe the disturbances; we hear the rustling in the leaves; we see strange sites, but many of us haven't connected the dots. Those who are familiar with some of the elements may not put the whole story together. Some are so accustomed to this sinister behavior that they think it is normal. Some folks are like a city dweller in the jungle, needing a field biologist to identify the behaviors going on around them. Let me give you this field biologist's overview. We understand pretty well the crew of bad actors lurking behind climate denial. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly called out and reported on this web of denial funded by the fossil fuel industry. Investigative journalists like Jane Mayer and scholars like Naomi Oreskes have dug into this scheme. There is actually a robust academic subspecialty that analyzes this web of denial as a novel socioeconomic and political phenomenon. The covert special interest machinery behind that effort is not just dedicated to opposing climate legislation. Another covert operation it runs is chronicled in our recent Senate Democrats' report here that examines the bad actors behind the special interest Court capture operation. This operation has crept forward over years, even decades. The Republican Party is more the tool of this effort than its principal. Big donors are behind it. The goal here is to fashion for the donors a Supreme Court that will not just rule for but reset society's ground rules to favor the big donors behind the scheme. On yet another front, there has been recent public reporting revealing the bad actors rushing to stand up a new and improved Republican voter suppression apparatus as they start to panic about the November election. Earlier this year, longtime partisan court fixer Leonard Leo stepped down from his formal role as executive vice president of the Court capture command center at the Federalist Society. At the same time, a mysterious new project called the Honest Elections Project began voter suppression work in swing States like Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan. It ran ads accusing Democrats of cheating with mail-in ballots; it sent threatening letters to election officials challenging voter rolls; and it filed legal proceedings--lots of legal proceedings--arguing for more voting restrictions ahead of November. But in their hurry, they did a weak job of covering their tracks. Reporters quickly uncovered that the Honest Elections Project is a rebrand of the Judicial Education Project--a key cog in that same Leonard Leo's machine. As the Guardian reporters who broke the story observed, ``By having a hand in both voting litigation and the judges on the Federal bench, [Leo's] network could create a system where conservative donors have an avenue to both oppose voting rights and appoint judges who would back at that effort.'' Last, we pretty well know who funds the massive and often anonymous political operation that props up the Republican Party. Take 2016, for instance, when the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers' political operation spent $2 million on ads targeting viable Democratic candidates in just two Senate races--Ohio and Wisconsin Over a year before the election, they were already at work bombing those candidates. They didn't use their names. They hid behind phony front groups. It took years to dig this out, but that is what happened. The anonymously funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $40 million in 2016 and 2018 supporting Republican House and Senate candidates. Dark waves of untraceable dark money pour everywhere into Republican elections. From slips and leaks and investigative reporting, we can see enough overlap across these four efforts to state the general proposition: It is the same crew. If you look at it as a covert operation run by special interests against their own country, it has at least these four programs, but it has one set of interests behind it: They run the climate denial covert op. They run the Court capture covert op. They rushed out the voter suppression op. And, with their money, they captured the Republican Party to use as their front. If this operation were not covert, if it were obvious, if the press and the public could readily connect the dots, it wouldn't work. People would know it was fossil fuel polluter money. Theywould get the joke. That is why it has to be a covert operation, and that means it needs dark money--anonymous, untraceable funds. A virulent little galaxy of 501(c)(4) groups, shell corporations, donor trusts, and other screening tools has been crafted to anonymize the donors and hide the connections. Why? Because the blood pumping through this beast that gives it life is dark money. If we expose that secret blood flow, the whole beast shrivels up: no dark money, no covert operations. That is why efforts to expose the dark money donors provoke such hysterical reactions from the front groups and from their operatives and from their mouthpieces like the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I have experienced these hysterical reactions over and over. Indeed, there was one in the news today. This speech might provoke even another. But at the end of the day, as Americans, I believe we share the proposition that nothing could be more corrupting than large flows of anonymous money in politics. That sort of money doesn't even have to be spent to be corrupting. The mere threat of a political attack can do the job, and the donor saves the money. Or it could be a private promise of unlimited support. Once a political weapon is permissible, private threats and promises to use or withhold that weapon are inevitable, and they are inevitably corrupting. But don't think the prospect of corruption daunts the schemers. A political regime that allows their corruption and helps cover up their covert operations is precisely what the dark money donors want. Why else would we do nothing about climate change when it is so obvious? Why else would we ignore every respectable scientist in the field? Why else ignore warnings of financial meltdown looming from bankers and economists across the country, even across the world? Why else ignore the fires that are burning up Siberia, for Pete's sake, and, closer to home, the flood warnings along our coasts and the droughts and the floods and the storms across our States? When astronomers see celestial bodies behave inexplicably, they look for the dark star, the black hole that influences the behavior of the visible bodies. Dark money is the dark star, the evil star influencing Congress's behavior--or I should say misbehavior--on climate change. So a preview of coming attractions here: The dark-money-funded race to capture the Court is also a race by the schemers to establish a new constitutional doctrine protecting their dark money schemes. Such a doctrine is already being grown in the dark-money-funded ideological hothouses, a theory that dark money anonymity is protected by the First Amendment rights of association and petition--a theory giving powerful interests the constitutional right to run covert operations against their own government, leaving regular citizens beguiled or bewildered. That theory may seem ludicrous, and, indeed, this notion got only the one vote from Justice Thomas in Citizens United, but remember that Thomas is the dark money crowd's leading indicator on the Court. Don't scoff. This argument is now popping up all over the corporate rightwing. Twice so far I have had corporate entities from whom I requested information about their dark money dealings ``plead the First'' in response to my questions. The game is on, whether we realize it or not, and one of the stakes in the game is climate action. We cannot be idle about this. Groups that run covert operations against our own country are not to be trusted with that country's welfare. What a foul convergence it would be if the dark money schemers used dark money to fund a Court capture operation that delivered a Court-created doctrine hatched in dark money hothouses, protecting that dark money from disclosure for eternity, permanently etching into our Constitution this pathway of corruption. As I have said over and over, take away the corrupting dark money weaponry from the fossil fuel industry, and we solve climate change. We have lost a decade to Citizens United, the decision that gave this industry the weaponry to kill climate bipartisanship. It is a decade we and our children will rue having lost. Let's lose no more time. Let's, once and for all, root out the corrupting dark money machinery, expose its nefarious and crooked covert operations, shut it down, and start running a real democracy around here again. If we can't do this now, then let's pray for an election that lets us do it soon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4717 | null | 1,064 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for a different topic. I am here for the 269th time with my increasingly battered ``Time to Wake Up'' poster to try to alert this Chamber to the threat of climate change--something, obviously, Louisiana knows very well--and to the forces that are blocking action on climate. In these climate speeches, I have talked often about the insidious encroachment on American Government of special interest power, which is what is behind all this climate denial and obstruction. It didn't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry's political forces used the cover of anonymous funding--what we call dark money--and they used phony front groups and clever propaganda to accomplish their aims. In effect, these fossil fuel political forces have run a covert operation against our own government. We observe the disturbances; we hear the rustling in the leaves; we see strange sites, but many of us haven't connected the dots. Those who are familiar with some of the elements may not put the whole story together. Some are so accustomed to this sinister behavior that they think it is normal. Some folks are like a city dweller in the jungle, needing a field biologist to identify the behaviors going on around them. Let me give you this field biologist's overview. We understand pretty well the crew of bad actors lurking behind climate denial. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly called out and reported on this web of denial funded by the fossil fuel industry. Investigative journalists like Jane Mayer and scholars like Naomi Oreskes have dug into this scheme. There is actually a robust academic subspecialty that analyzes this web of denial as a novel socioeconomic and political phenomenon. The covert special interest machinery behind that effort is not just dedicated to opposing climate legislation. Another covert operation it runs is chronicled in our recent Senate Democrats' report here that examines the bad actors behind the special interest Court capture operation. This operation has crept forward over years, even decades. The Republican Party is more the tool of this effort than its principal. Big donors are behind it. The goal here is to fashion for the donors a Supreme Court that will not just rule for but reset society's ground rules to favor the big donors behind the scheme. On yet another front, there has been recent public reporting revealing the bad actors rushing to stand up a new and improved Republican voter suppression apparatus as they start to panic about the November election. Earlier this year, longtime partisan court fixer Leonard Leo stepped down from his formal role as executive vice president of the Court capture command center at the Federalist Society. At the same time, a mysterious new project called the Honest Elections Project began voter suppression work in swing States like Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan. It ran ads accusing Democrats of cheating with mail-in ballots; it sent threatening letters to election officials challenging voter rolls; and it filed legal proceedings--lots of legal proceedings--arguing for more voting restrictions ahead of November. But in their hurry, they did a weak job of covering their tracks. Reporters quickly uncovered that the Honest Elections Project is a rebrand of the Judicial Education Project--a key cog in that same Leonard Leo's machine. As the Guardian reporters who broke the story observed, ``By having a hand in both voting litigation and the judges on the Federal bench, [Leo's] network could create a system where conservative donors have an avenue to both oppose voting rights and appoint judges who would back at that effort.'' Last, we pretty well know who funds the massive and often anonymous political operation that props up the Republican Party. Take 2016, for instance, when the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers' political operation spent $2 million on ads targeting viable Democratic candidates in just two Senate races--Ohio and Wisconsin Over a year before the election, they were already at work bombing those candidates. They didn't use their names. They hid behind phony front groups. It took years to dig this out, but that is what happened. The anonymously funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $40 million in 2016 and 2018 supporting Republican House and Senate candidates. Dark waves of untraceable dark money pour everywhere into Republican elections. From slips and leaks and investigative reporting, we can see enough overlap across these four efforts to state the general proposition: It is the same crew. If you look at it as a covert operation run by special interests against their own country, it has at least these four programs, but it has one set of interests behind it: They run the climate denial covert op. They run the Court capture covert op. They rushed out the voter suppression op. And, with their money, they captured the Republican Party to use as their front. If this operation were not covert, if it were obvious, if the press and the public could readily connect the dots, it wouldn't work. People would know it was fossil fuel polluter money. Theywould get the joke. That is why it has to be a covert operation, and that means it needs dark money--anonymous, untraceable funds. A virulent little galaxy of 501(c)(4) groups, shell corporations, donor trusts, and other screening tools has been crafted to anonymize the donors and hide the connections. Why? Because the blood pumping through this beast that gives it life is dark money. If we expose that secret blood flow, the whole beast shrivels up: no dark money, no covert operations. That is why efforts to expose the dark money donors provoke such hysterical reactions from the front groups and from their operatives and from their mouthpieces like the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I have experienced these hysterical reactions over and over. Indeed, there was one in the news today. This speech might provoke even another. But at the end of the day, as Americans, I believe we share the proposition that nothing could be more corrupting than large flows of anonymous money in politics. That sort of money doesn't even have to be spent to be corrupting. The mere threat of a political attack can do the job, and the donor saves the money. Or it could be a private promise of unlimited support. Once a political weapon is permissible, private threats and promises to use or withhold that weapon are inevitable, and they are inevitably corrupting. But don't think the prospect of corruption daunts the schemers. A political regime that allows their corruption and helps cover up their covert operations is precisely what the dark money donors want. Why else would we do nothing about climate change when it is so obvious? Why else would we ignore every respectable scientist in the field? Why else ignore warnings of financial meltdown looming from bankers and economists across the country, even across the world? Why else ignore the fires that are burning up Siberia, for Pete's sake, and, closer to home, the flood warnings along our coasts and the droughts and the floods and the storms across our States? When astronomers see celestial bodies behave inexplicably, they look for the dark star, the black hole that influences the behavior of the visible bodies. Dark money is the dark star, the evil star influencing Congress's behavior--or I should say misbehavior--on climate change. So a preview of coming attractions here: The dark-money-funded race to capture the Court is also a race by the schemers to establish a new constitutional doctrine protecting their dark money schemes. Such a doctrine is already being grown in the dark-money-funded ideological hothouses, a theory that dark money anonymity is protected by the First Amendment rights of association and petition--a theory giving powerful interests the constitutional right to run covert operations against their own government, leaving regular citizens beguiled or bewildered. That theory may seem ludicrous, and, indeed, this notion got only the one vote from Justice Thomas in Citizens United, but remember that Thomas is the dark money crowd's leading indicator on the Court. Don't scoff. This argument is now popping up all over the corporate rightwing. Twice so far I have had corporate entities from whom I requested information about their dark money dealings ``plead the First'' in response to my questions. The game is on, whether we realize it or not, and one of the stakes in the game is climate action. We cannot be idle about this. Groups that run covert operations against our own country are not to be trusted with that country's welfare. What a foul convergence it would be if the dark money schemers used dark money to fund a Court capture operation that delivered a Court-created doctrine hatched in dark money hothouses, protecting that dark money from disclosure for eternity, permanently etching into our Constitution this pathway of corruption. As I have said over and over, take away the corrupting dark money weaponry from the fossil fuel industry, and we solve climate change. We have lost a decade to Citizens United, the decision that gave this industry the weaponry to kill climate bipartisanship. It is a decade we and our children will rue having lost. Let's lose no more time. Let's, once and for all, root out the corrupting dark money machinery, expose its nefarious and crooked covert operations, shut it down, and start running a real democracy around here again. If we can't do this now, then let's pray for an election that lets us do it soon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4717 | null | 1,065 |
formal | special interests | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for a different topic. I am here for the 269th time with my increasingly battered ``Time to Wake Up'' poster to try to alert this Chamber to the threat of climate change--something, obviously, Louisiana knows very well--and to the forces that are blocking action on climate. In these climate speeches, I have talked often about the insidious encroachment on American Government of special interest power, which is what is behind all this climate denial and obstruction. It didn't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry's political forces used the cover of anonymous funding--what we call dark money--and they used phony front groups and clever propaganda to accomplish their aims. In effect, these fossil fuel political forces have run a covert operation against our own government. We observe the disturbances; we hear the rustling in the leaves; we see strange sites, but many of us haven't connected the dots. Those who are familiar with some of the elements may not put the whole story together. Some are so accustomed to this sinister behavior that they think it is normal. Some folks are like a city dweller in the jungle, needing a field biologist to identify the behaviors going on around them. Let me give you this field biologist's overview. We understand pretty well the crew of bad actors lurking behind climate denial. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly called out and reported on this web of denial funded by the fossil fuel industry. Investigative journalists like Jane Mayer and scholars like Naomi Oreskes have dug into this scheme. There is actually a robust academic subspecialty that analyzes this web of denial as a novel socioeconomic and political phenomenon. The covert special interest machinery behind that effort is not just dedicated to opposing climate legislation. Another covert operation it runs is chronicled in our recent Senate Democrats' report here that examines the bad actors behind the special interest Court capture operation. This operation has crept forward over years, even decades. The Republican Party is more the tool of this effort than its principal. Big donors are behind it. The goal here is to fashion for the donors a Supreme Court that will not just rule for but reset society's ground rules to favor the big donors behind the scheme. On yet another front, there has been recent public reporting revealing the bad actors rushing to stand up a new and improved Republican voter suppression apparatus as they start to panic about the November election. Earlier this year, longtime partisan court fixer Leonard Leo stepped down from his formal role as executive vice president of the Court capture command center at the Federalist Society. At the same time, a mysterious new project called the Honest Elections Project began voter suppression work in swing States like Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan. It ran ads accusing Democrats of cheating with mail-in ballots; it sent threatening letters to election officials challenging voter rolls; and it filed legal proceedings--lots of legal proceedings--arguing for more voting restrictions ahead of November. But in their hurry, they did a weak job of covering their tracks. Reporters quickly uncovered that the Honest Elections Project is a rebrand of the Judicial Education Project--a key cog in that same Leonard Leo's machine. As the Guardian reporters who broke the story observed, ``By having a hand in both voting litigation and the judges on the Federal bench, [Leo's] network could create a system where conservative donors have an avenue to both oppose voting rights and appoint judges who would back at that effort.'' Last, we pretty well know who funds the massive and often anonymous political operation that props up the Republican Party. Take 2016, for instance, when the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers' political operation spent $2 million on ads targeting viable Democratic candidates in just two Senate races--Ohio and Wisconsin Over a year before the election, they were already at work bombing those candidates. They didn't use their names. They hid behind phony front groups. It took years to dig this out, but that is what happened. The anonymously funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $40 million in 2016 and 2018 supporting Republican House and Senate candidates. Dark waves of untraceable dark money pour everywhere into Republican elections. From slips and leaks and investigative reporting, we can see enough overlap across these four efforts to state the general proposition: It is the same crew. If you look at it as a covert operation run by special interests against their own country, it has at least these four programs, but it has one set of interests behind it: They run the climate denial covert op. They run the Court capture covert op. They rushed out the voter suppression op. And, with their money, they captured the Republican Party to use as their front. If this operation were not covert, if it were obvious, if the press and the public could readily connect the dots, it wouldn't work. People would know it was fossil fuel polluter money. Theywould get the joke. That is why it has to be a covert operation, and that means it needs dark money--anonymous, untraceable funds. A virulent little galaxy of 501(c)(4) groups, shell corporations, donor trusts, and other screening tools has been crafted to anonymize the donors and hide the connections. Why? Because the blood pumping through this beast that gives it life is dark money. If we expose that secret blood flow, the whole beast shrivels up: no dark money, no covert operations. That is why efforts to expose the dark money donors provoke such hysterical reactions from the front groups and from their operatives and from their mouthpieces like the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I have experienced these hysterical reactions over and over. Indeed, there was one in the news today. This speech might provoke even another. But at the end of the day, as Americans, I believe we share the proposition that nothing could be more corrupting than large flows of anonymous money in politics. That sort of money doesn't even have to be spent to be corrupting. The mere threat of a political attack can do the job, and the donor saves the money. Or it could be a private promise of unlimited support. Once a political weapon is permissible, private threats and promises to use or withhold that weapon are inevitable, and they are inevitably corrupting. But don't think the prospect of corruption daunts the schemers. A political regime that allows their corruption and helps cover up their covert operations is precisely what the dark money donors want. Why else would we do nothing about climate change when it is so obvious? Why else would we ignore every respectable scientist in the field? Why else ignore warnings of financial meltdown looming from bankers and economists across the country, even across the world? Why else ignore the fires that are burning up Siberia, for Pete's sake, and, closer to home, the flood warnings along our coasts and the droughts and the floods and the storms across our States? When astronomers see celestial bodies behave inexplicably, they look for the dark star, the black hole that influences the behavior of the visible bodies. Dark money is the dark star, the evil star influencing Congress's behavior--or I should say misbehavior--on climate change. So a preview of coming attractions here: The dark-money-funded race to capture the Court is also a race by the schemers to establish a new constitutional doctrine protecting their dark money schemes. Such a doctrine is already being grown in the dark-money-funded ideological hothouses, a theory that dark money anonymity is protected by the First Amendment rights of association and petition--a theory giving powerful interests the constitutional right to run covert operations against their own government, leaving regular citizens beguiled or bewildered. That theory may seem ludicrous, and, indeed, this notion got only the one vote from Justice Thomas in Citizens United, but remember that Thomas is the dark money crowd's leading indicator on the Court. Don't scoff. This argument is now popping up all over the corporate rightwing. Twice so far I have had corporate entities from whom I requested information about their dark money dealings ``plead the First'' in response to my questions. The game is on, whether we realize it or not, and one of the stakes in the game is climate action. We cannot be idle about this. Groups that run covert operations against our own country are not to be trusted with that country's welfare. What a foul convergence it would be if the dark money schemers used dark money to fund a Court capture operation that delivered a Court-created doctrine hatched in dark money hothouses, protecting that dark money from disclosure for eternity, permanently etching into our Constitution this pathway of corruption. As I have said over and over, take away the corrupting dark money weaponry from the fossil fuel industry, and we solve climate change. We have lost a decade to Citizens United, the decision that gave this industry the weaponry to kill climate bipartisanship. It is a decade we and our children will rue having lost. Let's lose no more time. Let's, once and for all, root out the corrupting dark money machinery, expose its nefarious and crooked covert operations, shut it down, and start running a real democracy around here again. If we can't do this now, then let's pray for an election that lets us do it soon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4717 | null | 1,066 |
formal | shut it down | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for a different topic. I am here for the 269th time with my increasingly battered ``Time to Wake Up'' poster to try to alert this Chamber to the threat of climate change--something, obviously, Louisiana knows very well--and to the forces that are blocking action on climate. In these climate speeches, I have talked often about the insidious encroachment on American Government of special interest power, which is what is behind all this climate denial and obstruction. It didn't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry's political forces used the cover of anonymous funding--what we call dark money--and they used phony front groups and clever propaganda to accomplish their aims. In effect, these fossil fuel political forces have run a covert operation against our own government. We observe the disturbances; we hear the rustling in the leaves; we see strange sites, but many of us haven't connected the dots. Those who are familiar with some of the elements may not put the whole story together. Some are so accustomed to this sinister behavior that they think it is normal. Some folks are like a city dweller in the jungle, needing a field biologist to identify the behaviors going on around them. Let me give you this field biologist's overview. We understand pretty well the crew of bad actors lurking behind climate denial. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly called out and reported on this web of denial funded by the fossil fuel industry. Investigative journalists like Jane Mayer and scholars like Naomi Oreskes have dug into this scheme. There is actually a robust academic subspecialty that analyzes this web of denial as a novel socioeconomic and political phenomenon. The covert special interest machinery behind that effort is not just dedicated to opposing climate legislation. Another covert operation it runs is chronicled in our recent Senate Democrats' report here that examines the bad actors behind the special interest Court capture operation. This operation has crept forward over years, even decades. The Republican Party is more the tool of this effort than its principal. Big donors are behind it. The goal here is to fashion for the donors a Supreme Court that will not just rule for but reset society's ground rules to favor the big donors behind the scheme. On yet another front, there has been recent public reporting revealing the bad actors rushing to stand up a new and improved Republican voter suppression apparatus as they start to panic about the November election. Earlier this year, longtime partisan court fixer Leonard Leo stepped down from his formal role as executive vice president of the Court capture command center at the Federalist Society. At the same time, a mysterious new project called the Honest Elections Project began voter suppression work in swing States like Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan. It ran ads accusing Democrats of cheating with mail-in ballots; it sent threatening letters to election officials challenging voter rolls; and it filed legal proceedings--lots of legal proceedings--arguing for more voting restrictions ahead of November. But in their hurry, they did a weak job of covering their tracks. Reporters quickly uncovered that the Honest Elections Project is a rebrand of the Judicial Education Project--a key cog in that same Leonard Leo's machine. As the Guardian reporters who broke the story observed, ``By having a hand in both voting litigation and the judges on the Federal bench, [Leo's] network could create a system where conservative donors have an avenue to both oppose voting rights and appoint judges who would back at that effort.'' Last, we pretty well know who funds the massive and often anonymous political operation that props up the Republican Party. Take 2016, for instance, when the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers' political operation spent $2 million on ads targeting viable Democratic candidates in just two Senate races--Ohio and Wisconsin Over a year before the election, they were already at work bombing those candidates. They didn't use their names. They hid behind phony front groups. It took years to dig this out, but that is what happened. The anonymously funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $40 million in 2016 and 2018 supporting Republican House and Senate candidates. Dark waves of untraceable dark money pour everywhere into Republican elections. From slips and leaks and investigative reporting, we can see enough overlap across these four efforts to state the general proposition: It is the same crew. If you look at it as a covert operation run by special interests against their own country, it has at least these four programs, but it has one set of interests behind it: They run the climate denial covert op. They run the Court capture covert op. They rushed out the voter suppression op. And, with their money, they captured the Republican Party to use as their front. If this operation were not covert, if it were obvious, if the press and the public could readily connect the dots, it wouldn't work. People would know it was fossil fuel polluter money. Theywould get the joke. That is why it has to be a covert operation, and that means it needs dark money--anonymous, untraceable funds. A virulent little galaxy of 501(c)(4) groups, shell corporations, donor trusts, and other screening tools has been crafted to anonymize the donors and hide the connections. Why? Because the blood pumping through this beast that gives it life is dark money. If we expose that secret blood flow, the whole beast shrivels up: no dark money, no covert operations. That is why efforts to expose the dark money donors provoke such hysterical reactions from the front groups and from their operatives and from their mouthpieces like the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I have experienced these hysterical reactions over and over. Indeed, there was one in the news today. This speech might provoke even another. But at the end of the day, as Americans, I believe we share the proposition that nothing could be more corrupting than large flows of anonymous money in politics. That sort of money doesn't even have to be spent to be corrupting. The mere threat of a political attack can do the job, and the donor saves the money. Or it could be a private promise of unlimited support. Once a political weapon is permissible, private threats and promises to use or withhold that weapon are inevitable, and they are inevitably corrupting. But don't think the prospect of corruption daunts the schemers. A political regime that allows their corruption and helps cover up their covert operations is precisely what the dark money donors want. Why else would we do nothing about climate change when it is so obvious? Why else would we ignore every respectable scientist in the field? Why else ignore warnings of financial meltdown looming from bankers and economists across the country, even across the world? Why else ignore the fires that are burning up Siberia, for Pete's sake, and, closer to home, the flood warnings along our coasts and the droughts and the floods and the storms across our States? When astronomers see celestial bodies behave inexplicably, they look for the dark star, the black hole that influences the behavior of the visible bodies. Dark money is the dark star, the evil star influencing Congress's behavior--or I should say misbehavior--on climate change. So a preview of coming attractions here: The dark-money-funded race to capture the Court is also a race by the schemers to establish a new constitutional doctrine protecting their dark money schemes. Such a doctrine is already being grown in the dark-money-funded ideological hothouses, a theory that dark money anonymity is protected by the First Amendment rights of association and petition--a theory giving powerful interests the constitutional right to run covert operations against their own government, leaving regular citizens beguiled or bewildered. That theory may seem ludicrous, and, indeed, this notion got only the one vote from Justice Thomas in Citizens United, but remember that Thomas is the dark money crowd's leading indicator on the Court. Don't scoff. This argument is now popping up all over the corporate rightwing. Twice so far I have had corporate entities from whom I requested information about their dark money dealings ``plead the First'' in response to my questions. The game is on, whether we realize it or not, and one of the stakes in the game is climate action. We cannot be idle about this. Groups that run covert operations against our own country are not to be trusted with that country's welfare. What a foul convergence it would be if the dark money schemers used dark money to fund a Court capture operation that delivered a Court-created doctrine hatched in dark money hothouses, protecting that dark money from disclosure for eternity, permanently etching into our Constitution this pathway of corruption. As I have said over and over, take away the corrupting dark money weaponry from the fossil fuel industry, and we solve climate change. We have lost a decade to Citizens United, the decision that gave this industry the weaponry to kill climate bipartisanship. It is a decade we and our children will rue having lost. Let's lose no more time. Let's, once and for all, root out the corrupting dark money machinery, expose its nefarious and crooked covert operations, shut it down, and start running a real democracy around here again. If we can't do this now, then let's pray for an election that lets us do it soon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4717 | null | 1,067 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for a different topic. I am here for the 269th time with my increasingly battered ``Time to Wake Up'' poster to try to alert this Chamber to the threat of climate change--something, obviously, Louisiana knows very well--and to the forces that are blocking action on climate. In these climate speeches, I have talked often about the insidious encroachment on American Government of special interest power, which is what is behind all this climate denial and obstruction. It didn't happen on its own. The fossil fuel industry's political forces used the cover of anonymous funding--what we call dark money--and they used phony front groups and clever propaganda to accomplish their aims. In effect, these fossil fuel political forces have run a covert operation against our own government. We observe the disturbances; we hear the rustling in the leaves; we see strange sites, but many of us haven't connected the dots. Those who are familiar with some of the elements may not put the whole story together. Some are so accustomed to this sinister behavior that they think it is normal. Some folks are like a city dweller in the jungle, needing a field biologist to identify the behaviors going on around them. Let me give you this field biologist's overview. We understand pretty well the crew of bad actors lurking behind climate denial. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly called out and reported on this web of denial funded by the fossil fuel industry. Investigative journalists like Jane Mayer and scholars like Naomi Oreskes have dug into this scheme. There is actually a robust academic subspecialty that analyzes this web of denial as a novel socioeconomic and political phenomenon. The covert special interest machinery behind that effort is not just dedicated to opposing climate legislation. Another covert operation it runs is chronicled in our recent Senate Democrats' report here that examines the bad actors behind the special interest Court capture operation. This operation has crept forward over years, even decades. The Republican Party is more the tool of this effort than its principal. Big donors are behind it. The goal here is to fashion for the donors a Supreme Court that will not just rule for but reset society's ground rules to favor the big donors behind the scheme. On yet another front, there has been recent public reporting revealing the bad actors rushing to stand up a new and improved Republican voter suppression apparatus as they start to panic about the November election. Earlier this year, longtime partisan court fixer Leonard Leo stepped down from his formal role as executive vice president of the Court capture command center at the Federalist Society. At the same time, a mysterious new project called the Honest Elections Project began voter suppression work in swing States like Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan. It ran ads accusing Democrats of cheating with mail-in ballots; it sent threatening letters to election officials challenging voter rolls; and it filed legal proceedings--lots of legal proceedings--arguing for more voting restrictions ahead of November. But in their hurry, they did a weak job of covering their tracks. Reporters quickly uncovered that the Honest Elections Project is a rebrand of the Judicial Education Project--a key cog in that same Leonard Leo's machine. As the Guardian reporters who broke the story observed, ``By having a hand in both voting litigation and the judges on the Federal bench, [Leo's] network could create a system where conservative donors have an avenue to both oppose voting rights and appoint judges who would back at that effort.'' Last, we pretty well know who funds the massive and often anonymous political operation that props up the Republican Party. Take 2016, for instance, when the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers' political operation spent $2 million on ads targeting viable Democratic candidates in just two Senate races--Ohio and Wisconsin Over a year before the election, they were already at work bombing those candidates. They didn't use their names. They hid behind phony front groups. It took years to dig this out, but that is what happened. The anonymously funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $40 million in 2016 and 2018 supporting Republican House and Senate candidates. Dark waves of untraceable dark money pour everywhere into Republican elections. From slips and leaks and investigative reporting, we can see enough overlap across these four efforts to state the general proposition: It is the same crew. If you look at it as a covert operation run by special interests against their own country, it has at least these four programs, but it has one set of interests behind it: They run the climate denial covert op. They run the Court capture covert op. They rushed out the voter suppression op. And, with their money, they captured the Republican Party to use as their front. If this operation were not covert, if it were obvious, if the press and the public could readily connect the dots, it wouldn't work. People would know it was fossil fuel polluter money. Theywould get the joke. That is why it has to be a covert operation, and that means it needs dark money--anonymous, untraceable funds. A virulent little galaxy of 501(c)(4) groups, shell corporations, donor trusts, and other screening tools has been crafted to anonymize the donors and hide the connections. Why? Because the blood pumping through this beast that gives it life is dark money. If we expose that secret blood flow, the whole beast shrivels up: no dark money, no covert operations. That is why efforts to expose the dark money donors provoke such hysterical reactions from the front groups and from their operatives and from their mouthpieces like the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I have experienced these hysterical reactions over and over. Indeed, there was one in the news today. This speech might provoke even another. But at the end of the day, as Americans, I believe we share the proposition that nothing could be more corrupting than large flows of anonymous money in politics. That sort of money doesn't even have to be spent to be corrupting. The mere threat of a political attack can do the job, and the donor saves the money. Or it could be a private promise of unlimited support. Once a political weapon is permissible, private threats and promises to use or withhold that weapon are inevitable, and they are inevitably corrupting. But don't think the prospect of corruption daunts the schemers. A political regime that allows their corruption and helps cover up their covert operations is precisely what the dark money donors want. Why else would we do nothing about climate change when it is so obvious? Why else would we ignore every respectable scientist in the field? Why else ignore warnings of financial meltdown looming from bankers and economists across the country, even across the world? Why else ignore the fires that are burning up Siberia, for Pete's sake, and, closer to home, the flood warnings along our coasts and the droughts and the floods and the storms across our States? When astronomers see celestial bodies behave inexplicably, they look for the dark star, the black hole that influences the behavior of the visible bodies. Dark money is the dark star, the evil star influencing Congress's behavior--or I should say misbehavior--on climate change. So a preview of coming attractions here: The dark-money-funded race to capture the Court is also a race by the schemers to establish a new constitutional doctrine protecting their dark money schemes. Such a doctrine is already being grown in the dark-money-funded ideological hothouses, a theory that dark money anonymity is protected by the First Amendment rights of association and petition--a theory giving powerful interests the constitutional right to run covert operations against their own government, leaving regular citizens beguiled or bewildered. That theory may seem ludicrous, and, indeed, this notion got only the one vote from Justice Thomas in Citizens United, but remember that Thomas is the dark money crowd's leading indicator on the Court. Don't scoff. This argument is now popping up all over the corporate rightwing. Twice so far I have had corporate entities from whom I requested information about their dark money dealings ``plead the First'' in response to my questions. The game is on, whether we realize it or not, and one of the stakes in the game is climate action. We cannot be idle about this. Groups that run covert operations against our own country are not to be trusted with that country's welfare. What a foul convergence it would be if the dark money schemers used dark money to fund a Court capture operation that delivered a Court-created doctrine hatched in dark money hothouses, protecting that dark money from disclosure for eternity, permanently etching into our Constitution this pathway of corruption. As I have said over and over, take away the corrupting dark money weaponry from the fossil fuel industry, and we solve climate change. We have lost a decade to Citizens United, the decision that gave this industry the weaponry to kill climate bipartisanship. It is a decade we and our children will rue having lost. Let's lose no more time. Let's, once and for all, root out the corrupting dark money machinery, expose its nefarious and crooked covert operations, shut it down, and start running a real democracy around here again. If we can't do this now, then let's pray for an election that lets us do it soon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4717 | null | 1,068 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about some positive news and some positive news that happened just today. It is not about the coronavirus. It is not about politics. It is not about Hurricane Isaias. It has to do with some urgent and historic help for our national parks, something that is really important to all of us. We all love our parks. Today President Trump signed into law the landmark Great American Outdoors Act, landmark, bipartisan legislation that will protect and conserve our public lands. I am happy to see this effort finally cross the finish line because the natural beauty and rich history of America is something that we must preserve for future generations. A big part of the new law is bipartisan legislation that is called the Restore Our Parks Act that I have worked on for more than 3 years with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Mark Warner from Virginia was my partner in this, as well as Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Angus King of Maine. Our legislation involves urgent stewardship of our national parks, which is something that I have spent more than a dozen years working on. I guess I shouldn't admit that. Sometimes things take a long time around here. But going back to my days as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush, I started focusing on this issue of the backlog of maintenance projects at our national parks. It is alarming. It has been growing. It now adds up to over $12 billion, far more than the parks could ever afford to take care of based on the annual budgets we provide them from Congress. By the way, the annual budget from Congress for all operations and all maintenance is less than $3 billion. Yet there is a $12 billion maintenance backlog. When Teddy Roosevelt started the national parks, he wanted to preserve some of the most beautiful, pristine lands in America. He wanted to be sure they were going to be there for public use. It was a good decision. We now have 84 million acres of parkland all around the country. Some are those beautiful, pristine places like Yosemite and Yellowstone and the Tetons with spectacular, beautiful vistas, but others preserve our history. We have historical parks around the country. We have battlefields that we have preserved around the country to tell the story of our country, good and bad. We have Presidents' homes that have been preserved to be able to help, again, tell the story of America. Recently, I was at one of our national park sites in Ohio, and it is the home of an individual who was the first Black colonel in the United States Army. He was also the first Black superintendent of a national park. The home is also a site on the Underground Railroad, so it is a place where people can go and see where escaping slaves were harbored and understand more of the history, not just of slavery but also of the cooperation and the seeking for freedom that came out of the Underground Railroad. This is the Charles Young home near Xenia, OH. So our national parks are really important for so many reasons. Yet, during the past couple of decades, we haven't taken care of them as we should, and this backlog has built up. People appreciate our parks. During the past decade or so, we have had an increase of about 58 million in the number of visitors to our national parks. More are coming every year. Why? It is a relatively inexpensive vacation. They are beautiful. People from all over the world know about our national parks, and it is one of the things they love about America. The problem is that, when these people visit the parks nowadays, they aregoing to find that, over the years, we haven't kept up with these maintenance needs so the water systems, the roads, the bridges, the bathrooms, the visitor centers, some of the trails--many of these are now in bad shape. Some are closed, actually. When you go to a national park, you may find that a facility is closed because of a lack of funding for the deferred maintenance. We just haven't had the funding to do the capital improvements they need so that they can stay functional. Just the other week, I saw that firsthand at Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Northeast Ohio. It is a great park. It is the 13th most visited national park in America. It kind of runs between Cleveland and Akron, OH. It suffered from these deferred maintenance problems for years. I saw a crumbling trail. I saw trails that were falling into the Cuyahoga River and couldn't be used. I saw rusting historic train tracks that run through the park. It is a tourist railroad that runs through. Train tracks are an expensive thing to replace. Again, it has to be done. I saw a bridge that was really unsafe to be on and has to be restored. It is a historic bridge. We want to preserve it, but the costs are just too high given the annual budget for that park. Their maintenance backlog at that park alone is $50 million, yet their annual budget is about $11 million, which goes to the rangers and the programs and the maintenance and operations but is not enough money to take care of these big problems. In a way, by not fixing these problems, we are also increasing the cost. Think about it. These costs compound year after year. In your own house, you might think about what happens if you don't fix the leak in the roof. What happens is the drywall begins to have problems. You might have mold. The floors begin to get wet and wood floors begin to buckle. You have additional costs that, if you had just fixed that roof, you wouldn't have. Well, that is where we are with the parks. If we take the time and the effort to make the fixes now, we will save money over time for taxpayers because we will not have the compounding costs. Every day, it gets worse and worse. Now, finally, we have come up with a way to deal with it. Congress has asked our parks, over the last few years, to give us their deferred maintenance projects with specificity: What are your priority projects? What are the top priorities? We have asked them to lay it out in detail. It has been very helpful because we now know we have over $12 billion in maintenance needs but about $6.5 billion of that is high-priority projects--the projects most in need of immediate attention. We know what they are. They are shovel-ready. They have been vetted. We are proposing a source of funding to be able to deal with that because, again, the annual appropriations process does not come near enough to matching what we need to have done. The highest priority needs at the parks is about $6.5 billion. In this legislation--now law of the land--royalty income is taken from onshore and offshore oil and gas, and some of that royalty is directed toward this use. The next 5 years, enough of that funding will be there to deal with the $6.5 billion, half of the maintenance backlog. We would like to do better, but, frankly, this is historic. Never have we had so much funding go to the parks, never have we been able to deal with these backlogs that have built up over years. It is really a debt unpaid. That is how I look at it. It is something we should have been doing all along. We weren't. The costs have now snowballed, and now we need to deal with it. It is not so much a new responsibility as it is stewardship we never did in the first place. It is a debt unpaid. Second, again, it is going to save us money over time--assuming we want the parks to be working, we want the trails to be open, we want the visitors centers to be welcoming--all of which, of course, we do want and we must have. The bill is not just important for our parks but also our economy, too, because these projects are infrastructure projects. We have talked a lot about that here on how to get more jobs into our economy right now. With the impact of coronavirus on our economy, we need more opportunities out there. Infrastructure is one. These are infrastructure jobs--over 100,000 new jobs in this legislation alone. Again, these projects are shovel-ready. They are vetted. They are ones that Congress--thanks to our asking the Park Service for the information--knows what jobs are out there and what projects need to be done. It is a long-term investment too. As of 2019, visitor spending in communities near our parks resulted in $41.7 billion of benefit to the Nation's economy and supported 340,000 jobs. It is new jobs in terms of construction, but it is also ensuring the parks continue to be able to be attracting these visitors, which adds such a big economic boost to our economy. I am proud that Congress has come together as Republicans and Democrats in a nonpartisan way to support this important initiative, and I am thankful for the President and his support. He showed bold leadership by saying: You know what, we are going do this. Other Presidents have talked about it. In the last three or four administrations, we have talked about it. Again, I have been working on it for a dozen years. Now we have actually been able to do it. I also want to thank the Director of Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, for his help; the Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhard; and other members of the President's team, including Ivanka Trump, who has always been strongly supportive of our national parks. This is about responsible stewardship. These repairs were a debt unpaid. We are finally addressing them before the cost increase. Our parks have stood tall for more than a century now as the embodiment of American history and our shared commitment to preserving some of our most magnificent lands. Thanks to Restore Our Parks Act, we will now ensure that those parks stand tall for centuries to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4718 | null | 1,069 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about some positive news and some positive news that happened just today. It is not about the coronavirus. It is not about politics. It is not about Hurricane Isaias. It has to do with some urgent and historic help for our national parks, something that is really important to all of us. We all love our parks. Today President Trump signed into law the landmark Great American Outdoors Act, landmark, bipartisan legislation that will protect and conserve our public lands. I am happy to see this effort finally cross the finish line because the natural beauty and rich history of America is something that we must preserve for future generations. A big part of the new law is bipartisan legislation that is called the Restore Our Parks Act that I have worked on for more than 3 years with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Mark Warner from Virginia was my partner in this, as well as Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Angus King of Maine. Our legislation involves urgent stewardship of our national parks, which is something that I have spent more than a dozen years working on. I guess I shouldn't admit that. Sometimes things take a long time around here. But going back to my days as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush, I started focusing on this issue of the backlog of maintenance projects at our national parks. It is alarming. It has been growing. It now adds up to over $12 billion, far more than the parks could ever afford to take care of based on the annual budgets we provide them from Congress. By the way, the annual budget from Congress for all operations and all maintenance is less than $3 billion. Yet there is a $12 billion maintenance backlog. When Teddy Roosevelt started the national parks, he wanted to preserve some of the most beautiful, pristine lands in America. He wanted to be sure they were going to be there for public use. It was a good decision. We now have 84 million acres of parkland all around the country. Some are those beautiful, pristine places like Yosemite and Yellowstone and the Tetons with spectacular, beautiful vistas, but others preserve our history. We have historical parks around the country. We have battlefields that we have preserved around the country to tell the story of our country, good and bad. We have Presidents' homes that have been preserved to be able to help, again, tell the story of America. Recently, I was at one of our national park sites in Ohio, and it is the home of an individual who was the first Black colonel in the United States Army. He was also the first Black superintendent of a national park. The home is also a site on the Underground Railroad, so it is a place where people can go and see where escaping slaves were harbored and understand more of the history, not just of slavery but also of the cooperation and the seeking for freedom that came out of the Underground Railroad. This is the Charles Young home near Xenia, OH. So our national parks are really important for so many reasons. Yet, during the past couple of decades, we haven't taken care of them as we should, and this backlog has built up. People appreciate our parks. During the past decade or so, we have had an increase of about 58 million in the number of visitors to our national parks. More are coming every year. Why? It is a relatively inexpensive vacation. They are beautiful. People from all over the world know about our national parks, and it is one of the things they love about America. The problem is that, when these people visit the parks nowadays, they aregoing to find that, over the years, we haven't kept up with these maintenance needs so the water systems, the roads, the bridges, the bathrooms, the visitor centers, some of the trails--many of these are now in bad shape. Some are closed, actually. When you go to a national park, you may find that a facility is closed because of a lack of funding for the deferred maintenance. We just haven't had the funding to do the capital improvements they need so that they can stay functional. Just the other week, I saw that firsthand at Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Northeast Ohio. It is a great park. It is the 13th most visited national park in America. It kind of runs between Cleveland and Akron, OH. It suffered from these deferred maintenance problems for years. I saw a crumbling trail. I saw trails that were falling into the Cuyahoga River and couldn't be used. I saw rusting historic train tracks that run through the park. It is a tourist railroad that runs through. Train tracks are an expensive thing to replace. Again, it has to be done. I saw a bridge that was really unsafe to be on and has to be restored. It is a historic bridge. We want to preserve it, but the costs are just too high given the annual budget for that park. Their maintenance backlog at that park alone is $50 million, yet their annual budget is about $11 million, which goes to the rangers and the programs and the maintenance and operations but is not enough money to take care of these big problems. In a way, by not fixing these problems, we are also increasing the cost. Think about it. These costs compound year after year. In your own house, you might think about what happens if you don't fix the leak in the roof. What happens is the drywall begins to have problems. You might have mold. The floors begin to get wet and wood floors begin to buckle. You have additional costs that, if you had just fixed that roof, you wouldn't have. Well, that is where we are with the parks. If we take the time and the effort to make the fixes now, we will save money over time for taxpayers because we will not have the compounding costs. Every day, it gets worse and worse. Now, finally, we have come up with a way to deal with it. Congress has asked our parks, over the last few years, to give us their deferred maintenance projects with specificity: What are your priority projects? What are the top priorities? We have asked them to lay it out in detail. It has been very helpful because we now know we have over $12 billion in maintenance needs but about $6.5 billion of that is high-priority projects--the projects most in need of immediate attention. We know what they are. They are shovel-ready. They have been vetted. We are proposing a source of funding to be able to deal with that because, again, the annual appropriations process does not come near enough to matching what we need to have done. The highest priority needs at the parks is about $6.5 billion. In this legislation--now law of the land--royalty income is taken from onshore and offshore oil and gas, and some of that royalty is directed toward this use. The next 5 years, enough of that funding will be there to deal with the $6.5 billion, half of the maintenance backlog. We would like to do better, but, frankly, this is historic. Never have we had so much funding go to the parks, never have we been able to deal with these backlogs that have built up over years. It is really a debt unpaid. That is how I look at it. It is something we should have been doing all along. We weren't. The costs have now snowballed, and now we need to deal with it. It is not so much a new responsibility as it is stewardship we never did in the first place. It is a debt unpaid. Second, again, it is going to save us money over time--assuming we want the parks to be working, we want the trails to be open, we want the visitors centers to be welcoming--all of which, of course, we do want and we must have. The bill is not just important for our parks but also our economy, too, because these projects are infrastructure projects. We have talked a lot about that here on how to get more jobs into our economy right now. With the impact of coronavirus on our economy, we need more opportunities out there. Infrastructure is one. These are infrastructure jobs--over 100,000 new jobs in this legislation alone. Again, these projects are shovel-ready. They are vetted. They are ones that Congress--thanks to our asking the Park Service for the information--knows what jobs are out there and what projects need to be done. It is a long-term investment too. As of 2019, visitor spending in communities near our parks resulted in $41.7 billion of benefit to the Nation's economy and supported 340,000 jobs. It is new jobs in terms of construction, but it is also ensuring the parks continue to be able to be attracting these visitors, which adds such a big economic boost to our economy. I am proud that Congress has come together as Republicans and Democrats in a nonpartisan way to support this important initiative, and I am thankful for the President and his support. He showed bold leadership by saying: You know what, we are going do this. Other Presidents have talked about it. In the last three or four administrations, we have talked about it. Again, I have been working on it for a dozen years. Now we have actually been able to do it. I also want to thank the Director of Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, for his help; the Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhard; and other members of the President's team, including Ivanka Trump, who has always been strongly supportive of our national parks. This is about responsible stewardship. These repairs were a debt unpaid. We are finally addressing them before the cost increase. Our parks have stood tall for more than a century now as the embodiment of American history and our shared commitment to preserving some of our most magnificent lands. Thanks to Restore Our Parks Act, we will now ensure that those parks stand tall for centuries to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4718 | null | 1,070 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I also want to talk this afternoon a little about the Heroes legislation, the HEALS legislation, and some of the commonalities I see between the two. On the floor of the Senate this week, there has been some discussion about the need for us to come together in a bipartisan way to put together a package to deal with the coronavirus. Some call it the COVID 5.0 package. It is really probably 8.0. We have done a lot of legislation already, but there are things that still need to be done and some urgent matters, including dealing with the expiration of the unemployment insurance. I am on the floor today to talk about how I see the opportunity for us to move ahead by looking at some of the commonalities between the Democratic support and the Republican support for different legislation. As we all know, the discussions over the past week have not moved forward as quickly as we would like. In fact, it is pretty discouraging. Despite the fact that many people thought the Heroes Act was really a messaging bill--POLITICO wrote a story, one of our news media sources up here--and said: ``a messaging bill that has no chance of becoming law.'' Others made the same comments. Why? Because it was a $3.5 trillion pricetag for legislation, which would make it by far the most expensive bill ever passed by either House of Congress. But also, at a time when we had $1.1 trillion leftover from the CARES package and States have only allocated an average of about 25 percent of their CARES Act funding, it seemed like pushing taxpayers to foot the bill for the costliest legislation in history maybe wasn't the right way to go. Also, it had virtually no support from Republicans. Also, this legislation included a lot of stuff that had nothing do with COVID-19. The sense was: Yes, it is an important messaging bill for Democrats--that is out there--but that we needed to figure out a way now to come together as Republicans and Democrats. Leader McConnell also introduced legislation. That legislation is called the HEALS Act. It is time for us to figure out how to come together and figure out a solution going forward. Particularly with regard to some of theseurgent matters like unemployment insurance, we are already past time. Unemployment insurance already expired last Friday. We have to move forward with that. We should not be playing politics with people's livelihoods and making this a political football. Last week, and again today, my colleague from Arizona, Senator McSally, introduced what I thought was a great commonsense idea: Let's extend the existing unemployment insurance, $600 per week Federal supplement, for another week while we continue these negotiations so that people are not going to see their unemployment insurance checks decrease substantially. They would lose all the Federal benefit unless we do that. They would still have the State benefit but lose the $600 per week Unfortunately, Senate Democrats said no, objected to this commonsense idea. I don't quite get that. I think we ought to keep the $600 in place while we negotiate for the next week, and we ought to be sure and put the interests of the American people first and come to a commonsense solution. Now isn't the time for games. It is the time to get it right. I also note that with regard to unemployment insurance, there are lots of ideas out there. For the last few months, I have been proposing the idea of a return-to-work bonus. Maybe that is not the best idea. Maybe people have better ideas. The notion there would be the $600, which is the current Federal benefit, allows people on unemployment insurance, in many cases, to have more income on unemployment than they would working. According to the studies that have been done, including by the University of Chicago, about 68 percent of the people on unemployment insurance are making more money on unemployment insurance than they were making at work. Most Americans, including most Members of this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats alike--think that is not right. You shouldn't make more not to work. Unemployment insurance is meant to give you a little help. In Ohio, it is about 50 percent, up to a certain cap, but it is not meant to replace your wages, plus--which is what is happening--on average, 134-percent increase in wages if you are on unemployment insurance. There must be a way for us to come together and to solve this problem. There are Democrats and Republicans alike who have talked about perhaps lowering that amount from $600. I heard one of my Democratic colleagues on the floor today--the Senator from Oregon--talk about maybe you can tie it to the unemployment in the State. Others of us, again, and I have talked about the return-to-work bonus. You could take some of that $600 with you and go back to work, which would deal with, on a voluntary basis, the need for people to go back to work because employers are looking for folks. Right now in Ohio, we have a lot of jobs open, a lot of manufacturing jobs, as an example. I was at a plant recently--a Ford plant--where they are looking for people. They have a 25-percent absenteeism rate right now. They attribute a lot of that to the fact that people can make more money on unemployment insurance, but they need the workers badly. There are Honda plants in Ohio--that is another one of our manufacturers--where the white-collar workers are going to work on the assembly lines because they can't get enough workers coming in. I hear it across the board. I have heard it from those who are involved with developmental disabilities trying to get their workforce back. I have heard it from people who are involved with the treatment for opioids, so the alcohol and drug addiction boards are trying to get their people to come back to work. I have heard it from our small businesses that are trying to figure out how to reopen and reopen safely but have a tough time getting people to come back to work. There is a need for us to figure this out. For the workers themselves, it is much better for them to be connected with their employer again, isn't it? After all, that is where they are likely to get their healthcare. If they have it, they are likely to get their retirement savings. They are likely to get the training there to be able to keep up with the times. It is good to have people at work. The dignity and self-respect you get from work is something that is of value. We should all want that. All of us in this Chamber should focus on this issue and say: OK. The $600 was put in place during a tough summer. Let's be honest. A lot of people had a really tough time, and some people are still having a tough time. There should still be, in my view, a Federal supplement, but it can't be paying people more not to work than to work. That makes no sense, as we are starting to open this economy and open it safely. We have to figure out a way forward here. There are some Democrats who have worked on this issue. Timothy Geithner is an example of one who was Secretary of Treasury under President Obama, who put forward, along with other Democrats and Republicans, a proposal that said: Let's lower the amount, and let's tie it to the unemployment. This is something that, in talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including some Democratic colleagues who have talked to me privately, that, you know, they get it; this is not working, and we need to fix it. Let's do that. It seems to me there is a lot of commonality there, and we should be able to figure out a way forward. Let me mention some of the other places where I see a lot of commonality. First, both Republicans and Democrats agree that it is absolutely essential that as people return to work they do so safely. In the legislation we talked about earlier, the HEALS package, which Senator McConnell introduced, there is a proposal that is called the Healthy Workplace Tax Credit Act. Basically, what it says is, if a business is willing to put in place safety measures like a Plexiglas shield or do testing or have the PPE--the gloves and the masks and, in some cases, the gowns that are needed to stay safe--they should be able to get a tax credit for that. It not only encourages more employment, but it encourages employers to open in a safe way. I spoke to a bunch of restaurants yesterday from Ohio. They called in to talk about the legislation. They love this because they have a lot of costs associated with making their places safe during the coronavirus pandemic. But this legislation, again, is stuck because we can't seem to get to a negotiation. That is one where Democrats and Republicans could come together. There is another one that I think makes a lot of sense. It is called the Work Opportunity Tax Credit Expansion. That also is in the HEALS legislation. This has always been a bipartisan issue--the work opportunity tax credit. We have said simply that just as you can get a tax credit to hire veterans or to hire second-chance individuals who have come out of the prison system, you should be able to hire people from unemployment insurance who have lost their job because of COVID-19 and get a tax credit. This is something that, again, Democrats and Republicans should be able to work on together. Finally, in the HEALS package, we also have legislation that has a lot of appeal to Republicans and Democrats that is an expansion of the employee retention tax credit from the bipartisan CARES Act. This is legislation that passed 96 to 0 around here. We say, let's make this employee retention tax credit work better. We expand the amount you can get in terms of tax credit, expand the amount of time that has to be covered. It makes it a much better package for small businesses to use to be able to attract employees and to retain the employees they have. Again, this is nonpartisan, I would say, and certainly one that can be bipartisan Historically, these tax provisions have had bipartisan support. I worked with my friend Ben Cardin in designing the employee retention credit in March, expanding the opportunity tax credit, which has always had bipartisan support, and the healthy workplace tax credit. Senator Sinema actually has a very similar bill. Second, there is agreement on both sides of the aisle, we have to support our schools and our businesses so our kids can get back into the classroom and our parents can get back to work. With regard to schools, there is supposedly a big partisan divide over this issue. When I see it, I see schools,money being practically identical in the HEALS package and the Heroes Act that passed the House of Representatives. In fact, House Democrats provided around $58 billion for K-12. The HEALS Act actually increases that to $70 billion. There is actually more money in the HEALS legislation. On the business front, both Democrats and Republicans have seen value in the Paycheck Protection Program we introduced in the CARES Act, which is why both bills seek to expand it. Albeit in somewhat different ways, but there is greater consensus here than one might think. We just need to sort out the details. My colleague from Louisiana is here with me tonight in the Chamber. He has talked a lot about the need for us to improve the way we provide funding to local governments, municipalities, and to provide more flexibility. I don't think there is much disagreement about that on either side of the aisle. There may be a disagreement the numbers, the amount of funding, but, again, the HEALS package has funding. The Democrats have more funding. But flexibility--that is one where I think there is a lot of bipartisan consensus. I know it is a popular right now to say that we are so far apart we can never get together, but as I look at this, when you actually look at the individual pieces of this, I see a lot of commonalities. The final one I want to mention is one where I would think all of us should be together. That is addressing the underlying health crisis we face. Both the HEALS package and the Heroes Act provide increased funding for research into vaccines and antiviral treatments for this disease. Both acts also recognize the importance of increasing funding for testing, which is critical in making sure we can safely and sustainably reopen. There are more points of commonality between the Republican and Democratic approaches that I could touch on, like providing another $1,200 in stimulus checks for all Americans who make less than $75,000 a year. That, I understand, is something that both Democrats and Republicans support. That would be a huge part of this new package. The House-passed Heroes Act has, again, a pricetag that is just too high--$3.5 trillion. I think most people would acknowledge that. I also know there is a big difference between that and the $1 trillion that was in the proposal from Senator McConnell--$1 trillion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, when you look at the actual details of this, when you look at what is actually in these two pieces of legislation, there is so much commonality. I think it is critical that we get this legislation right. We have time to do that. In the meantime, as Senator McSally has proposed, let's continue the $600 for the next week. Let's be sure that we can build on these commonalities we see between these two pieces of legislation. Retreating into partisan corners at this critical time doesn't benefit any of us. It certainly doesn't benefit the United States, and it doesn't benefit us as an institution. It certainly doesn't benefit the people I represent. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4719 | null | 1,071 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I also want to talk this afternoon a little about the Heroes legislation, the HEALS legislation, and some of the commonalities I see between the two. On the floor of the Senate this week, there has been some discussion about the need for us to come together in a bipartisan way to put together a package to deal with the coronavirus. Some call it the COVID 5.0 package. It is really probably 8.0. We have done a lot of legislation already, but there are things that still need to be done and some urgent matters, including dealing with the expiration of the unemployment insurance. I am on the floor today to talk about how I see the opportunity for us to move ahead by looking at some of the commonalities between the Democratic support and the Republican support for different legislation. As we all know, the discussions over the past week have not moved forward as quickly as we would like. In fact, it is pretty discouraging. Despite the fact that many people thought the Heroes Act was really a messaging bill--POLITICO wrote a story, one of our news media sources up here--and said: ``a messaging bill that has no chance of becoming law.'' Others made the same comments. Why? Because it was a $3.5 trillion pricetag for legislation, which would make it by far the most expensive bill ever passed by either House of Congress. But also, at a time when we had $1.1 trillion leftover from the CARES package and States have only allocated an average of about 25 percent of their CARES Act funding, it seemed like pushing taxpayers to foot the bill for the costliest legislation in history maybe wasn't the right way to go. Also, it had virtually no support from Republicans. Also, this legislation included a lot of stuff that had nothing do with COVID-19. The sense was: Yes, it is an important messaging bill for Democrats--that is out there--but that we needed to figure out a way now to come together as Republicans and Democrats. Leader McConnell also introduced legislation. That legislation is called the HEALS Act. It is time for us to figure out how to come together and figure out a solution going forward. Particularly with regard to some of theseurgent matters like unemployment insurance, we are already past time. Unemployment insurance already expired last Friday. We have to move forward with that. We should not be playing politics with people's livelihoods and making this a political football. Last week, and again today, my colleague from Arizona, Senator McSally, introduced what I thought was a great commonsense idea: Let's extend the existing unemployment insurance, $600 per week Federal supplement, for another week while we continue these negotiations so that people are not going to see their unemployment insurance checks decrease substantially. They would lose all the Federal benefit unless we do that. They would still have the State benefit but lose the $600 per week Unfortunately, Senate Democrats said no, objected to this commonsense idea. I don't quite get that. I think we ought to keep the $600 in place while we negotiate for the next week, and we ought to be sure and put the interests of the American people first and come to a commonsense solution. Now isn't the time for games. It is the time to get it right. I also note that with regard to unemployment insurance, there are lots of ideas out there. For the last few months, I have been proposing the idea of a return-to-work bonus. Maybe that is not the best idea. Maybe people have better ideas. The notion there would be the $600, which is the current Federal benefit, allows people on unemployment insurance, in many cases, to have more income on unemployment than they would working. According to the studies that have been done, including by the University of Chicago, about 68 percent of the people on unemployment insurance are making more money on unemployment insurance than they were making at work. Most Americans, including most Members of this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats alike--think that is not right. You shouldn't make more not to work. Unemployment insurance is meant to give you a little help. In Ohio, it is about 50 percent, up to a certain cap, but it is not meant to replace your wages, plus--which is what is happening--on average, 134-percent increase in wages if you are on unemployment insurance. There must be a way for us to come together and to solve this problem. There are Democrats and Republicans alike who have talked about perhaps lowering that amount from $600. I heard one of my Democratic colleagues on the floor today--the Senator from Oregon--talk about maybe you can tie it to the unemployment in the State. Others of us, again, and I have talked about the return-to-work bonus. You could take some of that $600 with you and go back to work, which would deal with, on a voluntary basis, the need for people to go back to work because employers are looking for folks. Right now in Ohio, we have a lot of jobs open, a lot of manufacturing jobs, as an example. I was at a plant recently--a Ford plant--where they are looking for people. They have a 25-percent absenteeism rate right now. They attribute a lot of that to the fact that people can make more money on unemployment insurance, but they need the workers badly. There are Honda plants in Ohio--that is another one of our manufacturers--where the white-collar workers are going to work on the assembly lines because they can't get enough workers coming in. I hear it across the board. I have heard it from those who are involved with developmental disabilities trying to get their workforce back. I have heard it from people who are involved with the treatment for opioids, so the alcohol and drug addiction boards are trying to get their people to come back to work. I have heard it from our small businesses that are trying to figure out how to reopen and reopen safely but have a tough time getting people to come back to work. There is a need for us to figure this out. For the workers themselves, it is much better for them to be connected with their employer again, isn't it? After all, that is where they are likely to get their healthcare. If they have it, they are likely to get their retirement savings. They are likely to get the training there to be able to keep up with the times. It is good to have people at work. The dignity and self-respect you get from work is something that is of value. We should all want that. All of us in this Chamber should focus on this issue and say: OK. The $600 was put in place during a tough summer. Let's be honest. A lot of people had a really tough time, and some people are still having a tough time. There should still be, in my view, a Federal supplement, but it can't be paying people more not to work than to work. That makes no sense, as we are starting to open this economy and open it safely. We have to figure out a way forward here. There are some Democrats who have worked on this issue. Timothy Geithner is an example of one who was Secretary of Treasury under President Obama, who put forward, along with other Democrats and Republicans, a proposal that said: Let's lower the amount, and let's tie it to the unemployment. This is something that, in talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including some Democratic colleagues who have talked to me privately, that, you know, they get it; this is not working, and we need to fix it. Let's do that. It seems to me there is a lot of commonality there, and we should be able to figure out a way forward. Let me mention some of the other places where I see a lot of commonality. First, both Republicans and Democrats agree that it is absolutely essential that as people return to work they do so safely. In the legislation we talked about earlier, the HEALS package, which Senator McConnell introduced, there is a proposal that is called the Healthy Workplace Tax Credit Act. Basically, what it says is, if a business is willing to put in place safety measures like a Plexiglas shield or do testing or have the PPE--the gloves and the masks and, in some cases, the gowns that are needed to stay safe--they should be able to get a tax credit for that. It not only encourages more employment, but it encourages employers to open in a safe way. I spoke to a bunch of restaurants yesterday from Ohio. They called in to talk about the legislation. They love this because they have a lot of costs associated with making their places safe during the coronavirus pandemic. But this legislation, again, is stuck because we can't seem to get to a negotiation. That is one where Democrats and Republicans could come together. There is another one that I think makes a lot of sense. It is called the Work Opportunity Tax Credit Expansion. That also is in the HEALS legislation. This has always been a bipartisan issue--the work opportunity tax credit. We have said simply that just as you can get a tax credit to hire veterans or to hire second-chance individuals who have come out of the prison system, you should be able to hire people from unemployment insurance who have lost their job because of COVID-19 and get a tax credit. This is something that, again, Democrats and Republicans should be able to work on together. Finally, in the HEALS package, we also have legislation that has a lot of appeal to Republicans and Democrats that is an expansion of the employee retention tax credit from the bipartisan CARES Act. This is legislation that passed 96 to 0 around here. We say, let's make this employee retention tax credit work better. We expand the amount you can get in terms of tax credit, expand the amount of time that has to be covered. It makes it a much better package for small businesses to use to be able to attract employees and to retain the employees they have. Again, this is nonpartisan, I would say, and certainly one that can be bipartisan Historically, these tax provisions have had bipartisan support. I worked with my friend Ben Cardin in designing the employee retention credit in March, expanding the opportunity tax credit, which has always had bipartisan support, and the healthy workplace tax credit. Senator Sinema actually has a very similar bill. Second, there is agreement on both sides of the aisle, we have to support our schools and our businesses so our kids can get back into the classroom and our parents can get back to work. With regard to schools, there is supposedly a big partisan divide over this issue. When I see it, I see schools,money being practically identical in the HEALS package and the Heroes Act that passed the House of Representatives. In fact, House Democrats provided around $58 billion for K-12. The HEALS Act actually increases that to $70 billion. There is actually more money in the HEALS legislation. On the business front, both Democrats and Republicans have seen value in the Paycheck Protection Program we introduced in the CARES Act, which is why both bills seek to expand it. Albeit in somewhat different ways, but there is greater consensus here than one might think. We just need to sort out the details. My colleague from Louisiana is here with me tonight in the Chamber. He has talked a lot about the need for us to improve the way we provide funding to local governments, municipalities, and to provide more flexibility. I don't think there is much disagreement about that on either side of the aisle. There may be a disagreement the numbers, the amount of funding, but, again, the HEALS package has funding. The Democrats have more funding. But flexibility--that is one where I think there is a lot of bipartisan consensus. I know it is a popular right now to say that we are so far apart we can never get together, but as I look at this, when you actually look at the individual pieces of this, I see a lot of commonalities. The final one I want to mention is one where I would think all of us should be together. That is addressing the underlying health crisis we face. Both the HEALS package and the Heroes Act provide increased funding for research into vaccines and antiviral treatments for this disease. Both acts also recognize the importance of increasing funding for testing, which is critical in making sure we can safely and sustainably reopen. There are more points of commonality between the Republican and Democratic approaches that I could touch on, like providing another $1,200 in stimulus checks for all Americans who make less than $75,000 a year. That, I understand, is something that both Democrats and Republicans support. That would be a huge part of this new package. The House-passed Heroes Act has, again, a pricetag that is just too high--$3.5 trillion. I think most people would acknowledge that. I also know there is a big difference between that and the $1 trillion that was in the proposal from Senator McConnell--$1 trillion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, when you look at the actual details of this, when you look at what is actually in these two pieces of legislation, there is so much commonality. I think it is critical that we get this legislation right. We have time to do that. In the meantime, as Senator McSally has proposed, let's continue the $600 for the next week. Let's be sure that we can build on these commonalities we see between these two pieces of legislation. Retreating into partisan corners at this critical time doesn't benefit any of us. It certainly doesn't benefit the United States, and it doesn't benefit us as an institution. It certainly doesn't benefit the people I represent. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4719 | null | 1,072 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak of a largely unknown aspect of the Vietnam war and a too neglected aspect. I rise to highlight Air America and its role in military conflicts from the 1940s through the Cold War. Air America, which was previously known as the Civil Air Transport, operated under a shroud of mystery, intrigue, and, at times, purposeful deceit to allow the organization to continue covert operations. Its members lived the motto ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally.'' Now, if you would look at this picture, you would think that this must be an Army helicopter pilot performing a rescue on an active battlefield. No, that pilot was a civilian. He was a contractor of sorts with the U.S. Government and was flying that helicopter to rescue that soldier or that marine, not an enlisted person. Its members, again, lived the motto ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally,'' including rescuing those from battlefields. They garnered respect as cargo and charter airline pilots during the Secret War in Laos in the 1960s and 1970s. As the war progressed, the U.S. Government increasingly relied on Air America pilots to conduct search-and-rescue missions of downed U.S. military pilots--often in heavy combat areas with no weapons of their own. The daily risks that they took to save others earned them the reputation as being the most shot at airline. I shouldn't laugh, but there is, I am sure, kind of a gallows humor they felt when they said that, ``the most shot at airline.'' Here is a depiction of a plaque in Richardson, TX, that President Reagan dedicated. On it are the names of those who died as Air America pilots. At the plaque dedication in Dallas, President Ronald Reagan said: ``Although free people everywhere owe you more than we can hope to repay, our greatest debt is to your companions who gave their last full measure of devotion.'' While President Reagan recognized the contributions that these pilots made to the United States, Air America has received mixed support throughout its history. The Department of Defense and the CIA, among others, have argued that Air America pilots are not veterans, saying their heroic rescues of American soldiers were not part of their contracts or within the scope of their mission. These sentiments have kept Air America pilots from receiving veteran status and the benefits that come with the status. This needs to change. This need to change is based on declassified materials that show these pilots are deserving of such recognition for their exploits. Who were these dedicated Americans serving in Air America? Most crews had military training. Many bore the scars of fighting on the ground in Korea and Vietnam. They are former POWs and Special Forces--all tough as nails. They were also crop dusters and water bombers who fought forest fires. They were smoke jumpers and flight mechanics. Thousands of personnel were indigenous people, both male and female. Air America members came from all walks of life to answer the call to serve. Military aircraft was provided to employees to conduct combat-related activity in areas where the U.S. Armed Forces could not go due to treaties. They served at considerable risk. Numerous employees died or were seriously injured. However, their sacrifices were not given the same recognition as military members. Lowell Pirkle was killed when an RPG hit his helicopter, and it burned to the ground. Sadly, it took years for his remains to be repatriated and sent to Honolulu. When Deborah, Lowell's wife, insisted that he be buried in Arlington Cemetery, she was informed that Lowell was ineligible because he died not in the military but as part of Air America. He would eventually be buried in Arlington due to his previous military service, though the work in both engagements was essentially the same Let me just pause for a second. Let's look at this poster. From 1962 to 1975, Air America inserted and extracted U.S. military personnel and provided combat support across the entire Vietnam field. Air America rescued hundreds of Americans and stranded Vietnamese, including the last out of Saigon in April 1975. Who can forget these dramatic photographs? Air America pioneered remote landings during the Vietnam war to resupply U.S. troops and key allies, like the Hmong in Laos, and Air America pilots were the only known civilian employees to operate non-FAA-certified military aircraft in combat zones. Lastly, as I previously mentioned, here is the memorial plaque in Richardson, TX, that honors the 146 Air America veterans who were killed. These men served ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally.'' Again, it has been denied that they actually performed these military duties, but, once more, declassified documents show that the U.S. Government owes Air America and, therefore, its members status as veterans. In August 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote: ``Political factors require that Air America helicopters continue to assume responsibility for all search-and-rescue operations in Laos.'' A year prior, Ambassador to Laos Leonard Unger said: ``Search and rescue is a crucial factor in maintaining the morale of pilots, and there is no prospect at this juncture of establishing effective search-and-rescue procedures without the use of both civilian (Air America) and U.S. military personnel.'' The stories go on, but I will add one more. CIA Assistant General Counsel James Harris wrote to the Civil Service Commission: ``In the case of Air America, it would have been virtually impossible to preserve the cover story had all the corporate employees been advised that they were really employees of the United States Government.'' It is time for the U.S. Government to set the record straight about Air America. Their service is commended by all who served with them, especially by those servicemembers whose lives were saved by Air America. We owe them more than a debt of gratitude. I urge my colleagues to consider the story of these brave pilots and work toward providing the recognition they deserve as Federal employees, including granting veteran status and the associated benefits. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASSIDY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4721 | null | 1,073 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak of a largely unknown aspect of the Vietnam war and a too neglected aspect. I rise to highlight Air America and its role in military conflicts from the 1940s through the Cold War. Air America, which was previously known as the Civil Air Transport, operated under a shroud of mystery, intrigue, and, at times, purposeful deceit to allow the organization to continue covert operations. Its members lived the motto ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally.'' Now, if you would look at this picture, you would think that this must be an Army helicopter pilot performing a rescue on an active battlefield. No, that pilot was a civilian. He was a contractor of sorts with the U.S. Government and was flying that helicopter to rescue that soldier or that marine, not an enlisted person. Its members, again, lived the motto ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally,'' including rescuing those from battlefields. They garnered respect as cargo and charter airline pilots during the Secret War in Laos in the 1960s and 1970s. As the war progressed, the U.S. Government increasingly relied on Air America pilots to conduct search-and-rescue missions of downed U.S. military pilots--often in heavy combat areas with no weapons of their own. The daily risks that they took to save others earned them the reputation as being the most shot at airline. I shouldn't laugh, but there is, I am sure, kind of a gallows humor they felt when they said that, ``the most shot at airline.'' Here is a depiction of a plaque in Richardson, TX, that President Reagan dedicated. On it are the names of those who died as Air America pilots. At the plaque dedication in Dallas, President Ronald Reagan said: ``Although free people everywhere owe you more than we can hope to repay, our greatest debt is to your companions who gave their last full measure of devotion.'' While President Reagan recognized the contributions that these pilots made to the United States, Air America has received mixed support throughout its history. The Department of Defense and the CIA, among others, have argued that Air America pilots are not veterans, saying their heroic rescues of American soldiers were not part of their contracts or within the scope of their mission. These sentiments have kept Air America pilots from receiving veteran status and the benefits that come with the status. This needs to change. This need to change is based on declassified materials that show these pilots are deserving of such recognition for their exploits. Who were these dedicated Americans serving in Air America? Most crews had military training. Many bore the scars of fighting on the ground in Korea and Vietnam. They are former POWs and Special Forces--all tough as nails. They were also crop dusters and water bombers who fought forest fires. They were smoke jumpers and flight mechanics. Thousands of personnel were indigenous people, both male and female. Air America members came from all walks of life to answer the call to serve. Military aircraft was provided to employees to conduct combat-related activity in areas where the U.S. Armed Forces could not go due to treaties. They served at considerable risk. Numerous employees died or were seriously injured. However, their sacrifices were not given the same recognition as military members. Lowell Pirkle was killed when an RPG hit his helicopter, and it burned to the ground. Sadly, it took years for his remains to be repatriated and sent to Honolulu. When Deborah, Lowell's wife, insisted that he be buried in Arlington Cemetery, she was informed that Lowell was ineligible because he died not in the military but as part of Air America. He would eventually be buried in Arlington due to his previous military service, though the work in both engagements was essentially the same Let me just pause for a second. Let's look at this poster. From 1962 to 1975, Air America inserted and extracted U.S. military personnel and provided combat support across the entire Vietnam field. Air America rescued hundreds of Americans and stranded Vietnamese, including the last out of Saigon in April 1975. Who can forget these dramatic photographs? Air America pioneered remote landings during the Vietnam war to resupply U.S. troops and key allies, like the Hmong in Laos, and Air America pilots were the only known civilian employees to operate non-FAA-certified military aircraft in combat zones. Lastly, as I previously mentioned, here is the memorial plaque in Richardson, TX, that honors the 146 Air America veterans who were killed. These men served ``Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, Professionally.'' Again, it has been denied that they actually performed these military duties, but, once more, declassified documents show that the U.S. Government owes Air America and, therefore, its members status as veterans. In August 1965, Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote: ``Political factors require that Air America helicopters continue to assume responsibility for all search-and-rescue operations in Laos.'' A year prior, Ambassador to Laos Leonard Unger said: ``Search and rescue is a crucial factor in maintaining the morale of pilots, and there is no prospect at this juncture of establishing effective search-and-rescue procedures without the use of both civilian (Air America) and U.S. military personnel.'' The stories go on, but I will add one more. CIA Assistant General Counsel James Harris wrote to the Civil Service Commission: ``In the case of Air America, it would have been virtually impossible to preserve the cover story had all the corporate employees been advised that they were really employees of the United States Government.'' It is time for the U.S. Government to set the record straight about Air America. Their service is commended by all who served with them, especially by those servicemembers whose lives were saved by Air America. We owe them more than a debt of gratitude. I urge my colleagues to consider the story of these brave pilots and work toward providing the recognition they deserve as Federal employees, including granting veteran status and the associated benefits. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASSIDY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4721 | null | 1,074 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high-intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our policeand also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star-Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say--the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but theycould happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4722 | null | 1,075 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high-intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our policeand also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star-Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say--the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but theycould happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4722 | null | 1,076 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high-intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our policeand also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star-Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say--the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but theycould happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4722 | null | 1,077 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high-intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our policeand also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star-Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say--the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but theycould happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4722 | null | 1,078 |
formal | law and order | null | racist | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high-intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our policeand also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star-Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say--the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but theycould happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4722 | null | 1,079 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high-intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our policeand also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star-Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say--the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but theycould happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4722 | null | 1,080 |
formal | Yahoo | null | anti-Latino | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to start by doing something that has become a little controversial. It shouldn't be, and the fact that it is reflects a sad time in our Nation's history. Here it is: To our Nation's police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers out there--State and Federal--thank you. I appreciate you and am grateful for your service. Why has that become controversial? Because all of a sudden, criticizing and demonizing our Nation's law enforcement has become the popular liberal thing to do. Over the last few days, you have probably seen the liberal mainstream media making wild claims and accusations that President Trump has deployed so-called secret police to Portland. These allegations got even more attention over the last few weeks because some of my Democratic colleagues came down to the floor and made the wildest accusations about how the Federal officers were the worst in the world. Some of the words they used were: ``bold,'' ``sadistic,'' ``Gestapos,'' ``storm troopers,'' ``paramilitary''--words designed to stir the emotions of everyone watching. They were talking about the law enforcement community. They were talking about sheriffs and police. Rather than letting these wild allegations go unchecked, let's remember how we got here. For over 60 days, violent demonstrators have laid siege on Portland. That is not an exaggeration. They have specifically and deliberately attacked a Federal courthouse, attempting to destroy it. Let's be clear: These are not peaceful protesters. Everyone agrees in the First Amendment and the support for peaceful demonstrations. We all agree on that. That is not what we are talking about here. That is not what happened when the anarchist groups co-opted the peaceful protests with the fires, the lasers, the bricks, the Molotov cocktails, the sledgehammers, and more. See the chart. This chart we have here, the one on the right says: Day 53. Federal facilities and law enforcement officials targeted and attacked overnight. One officer injured and 5 arrested. The one on the left says: Day 56. Last night six DHS law enforcement officers were injured in Portland. To be clear, criminals assaulted FEDERAL officers on FEDERAL property . . . and the city of Portland did nothing. The response from local leaders? They have caved to the mob and will not allow local law enforcement to protect Federal property. In fact, they have demanded Federal law enforcement leave and surrender to the mob. Can you imagine? This is in America that this happened. So that leaves us two options: One, completely give in to the mob and let them burn down the taxpayer-funded courthouse--and we all know that they will not stop there--or, two, send additional Federal resources to Portland. We are a nation of law and order. Additional Federal resources is the only correct answer here. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a choice. They are legally required to protect these facilities. Contrary to what has been reported in the media, these Federal officers are acting in accordance with the law. They have the legal authority and responsibility to protect Federal property, as well as detain, question, and arrest anyone in accordance with that. Specifically, that is found in 40 U.S. Code 1315. So they aren't some sort of secret police; they are legal law enforcement doing what local law enforcement wasn't being allowed to do locally there, so they took up their responsibilities and performed. Last week, Governor Brown finally conceded. I guess he just got to the point where he was willing to be fearful for the people and their injuries and the terrorist activity that was going on. But he conceded and allowed the Portland Police Bureau to clear out the downtown parks that were a base for the agitators and let the State police officers defend Federal properties. That is the responsible thing to do, and it shows the President's commitment to working with State and local law enforcement when additional resources are needed. It could be easy to think that this is an outlier, but, sadly, the national ``defund the police'' movement--it is a movement in this country now. Everyone is talking about it, defund law enforcement. The movement is having a real impact throughout America. The result? Shootings have increased in New York by 277 percent this year; in Chicago, by 50 percent this year, and in May, they saw the most violent weekend in modern history; and in Minneapolis, the murder rate is expected to surpass an alltime high. In fact, as President Trump mentioned recently, the 20-most dangerous cities in America are run by Democrats. I have to mention this because the Washington Post tried to fact check the President's statement. And do you know what? It is a good thing that they did. The result? The Post showed that, per capita, 19 of the 20 cities with the most violent crime per 10,000 residents were controlled by Democrats, and the one that wasn't controlled by Democrats was an Independent, but that Independent is a Democrat. I guess they hoped we would only read the headline and not see the data that shows the impact of the lack of leadership. In case you can't tell watching at home, the blue lines on the chart that will go up here--what we have here is the claim ``that the most dangerous cities in America all run by Democrats. They aren't.'' But then they found out that they are. Here they are. The blue lines are run by the Democrats; the red lines, Independents. So that is a problem. Honorable, good law enforcement officers are enduring severe budget cuts from spineless politicians who want to concede to the far left ``defund the police'' movement. They are being overstretched and overburdened That doesn't even get into the injuries law enforcement has endured during these violent protests recently. In Portland alone, three officers are facing possible permanent blindness after having high-intensity lasers shown in their eyes. Other officers have faced injuries from being hit with bricks and fireworks. They have endured verbal assaults, been spit on, and called the most offensive names. At least 30 officers have been victims of a doxing, where anarchists share where their families live online so they can have access to them. In fact, since July 4, over 245 Federal law enforcement officers have been injured in Portland. Fortunately, President Trump is taking action, standing up for our policeand also for law enforcement in our communities. Last week, he launched Operation Legend, a Federal law enforcement initiative that will work with State and local officials to address the spike in violent crimes that we are seeing in too many cities. This is the right approach to restore law and order. The last thing I will leave you with on the floor is, 2 weeks ago, in the midst of sensationalizing statements, the junior Senator from Oregon challenged me, basically, implying that if what was happening in Portland was happening in Oklahoma, I would feel differently. Well, that isn't--the difference isn't how I would feel. The difference is between Oklahoma City and Oregon, I guess. In Oklahoma, we respect our police and the sheriffs and the State troopers. This is a good one here. This is in the Springlake Division. This is in Oklahoma. I walk past this every time we come and go from the station. What a wonderful community we see serving here in Oklahoma City. You can read statements of people saying how much they appreciate our law enforcement officers. This is the door that was there, and it is covered with hearts on the door. That tells the story. The sacrifice they make daily is real. They put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities, but they also work long hours in difficult conditions. Here is a reminder of that sacrifice. I will put up two officers here. There are two officers whom I am going to show you. Last month, two Tulsa police officers were conducting a routine traffic stop, pulling over a car with expired tags. As any veteran officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine anything in law enforcement. This is no exception. Officer Zarkeshan, a rookie, and Sergeant Craig Johnson had no way of knowing that the man they had just pulled over was armed. The man on the left is Craig Johnson. Both officers were shot multiple times. Sergeant Johnson, who has two young sons, died. Officer Zarkeshan, after enduring multiple surgeries, is blessed. He is now stable and making good progress. ``Protect and serve'' isn't just a phrase for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers around the country; it is a calling, a sacrifice for them. Too often, officers have to sacrifice their lives for their communities. That is why, when liberal politicians are tripping over themselves, trying as hard as they can to demonize all police officers, I want to make it clear that some of us are standing up against defunding police and in favor of defending police. I will always stand with President Trump in defense of our good, honorable law enforcement officers. They will sacrifice anything for those of us here, and to not stand up and defend them is to dishonor them. In Oregon, politicians are clamoring to defend the terrorists who are trying to destroy law and order. On the other side, our President is trying to defend it. God bless America's law enforcement officers and our President. The police and our law enforcement aren't the only things the new cancel culture has come for more recently. While not a literal mob trying to burn down buildings, the online liberal mob is still seeking to destroy our American icons by canceling them, subjecting them to public backlash fueled by the progressive ideology. Just before July Fourth--our national holiday--they came for the National Anthem. The Yahoo music editor-in-chief wrote that the ``'Star-Spangled Banner' seems to be striking a wrong note.'' The Los Angeles Times wrote an op-ed titled, ``It's time to cancel the `Star-Spangled Banner.''' This is America we are talking about. Why do they do that? Because in the fourth stanza of the song--and I didn't even know until a month ago that it had more than one stanza. They knew it was more than just one stanza. But in the fourth stanza, there is a couplet that reads: No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight in the gloom of the grave. Now, because of that, they want to cancel the Star-Spangled Banner. Marc Ferris, who literally wrote the book on the Star-Spangled Banner, stated that Key was likely using the term loosely, contrasting the free, patriot Americans against the British soldiers subjected to the yoke of the monarchy. But Yahoo's article even says if there is ``a tradition that hurts any part of society,'' it is time to just throw it away. That throwing it away has extended to statues of our Founders, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It also includes Mahatma Gandhi and Ulysses S. Grant. It even includes historical items from popular culture like ``Gone with the Wind''--yes, ``Gone with the Wind.'' They wanted to do away with ``Gone with the Wind.'' The organization that has a program where, online, they can dial up any movie that they want to do, one of them is ``Gone with the Wind,'' and they want to do it because of--they say--the culture. That happens to be the one that Hattie McDaniel was the first Black American to win an Oscar for. This is, again, what is going on right now. Like so many American families, I watch with shock and dismay as to how many are setting aside critical thinking in favor of an emotional mob that moves closer and closer to a total Cultural Revolution takeover. Should we have expected anything less from the Democratic Party as they continue to run toward socialism and proudly embrace communist beliefs? Remember, we have seen this before. Chairman Mao knew that, to fully seize control and build a socialist country, he needed to destroy our ``four olds": old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits. The Communists in China needed the Orwellian control of ``History has stopped'' in 1966, and the Communists here in America need it today. How else can they erase our ideas, culture, and customs in order to impose their radical policies on all of us? How much longer do we need to wait for their cries of ``Abolish rent'' to become ``Jail the bourgeois landlord''? We already see professors accused of wrong thinking for having the audacity to teach or advocate for anything unapproved by the progressive mob. How long until they are denounced as class traitors? Does our Nation have flaws? Of course. But what is unique and is perhaps the most beautiful part of our Nation is that we have the ability to see those flaws, to change them, and to grow. And we do it under the promise of liberty and justice for all. We did that after the Civil War. We saw it again after World War II. We saw that growth in the civil rights movement. The reality of this leftwing ``cancel culture'' mob is that there is no goal of debate. The goal is to shame, humiliate, and ridicule into conformity through a vicious attack reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party struggle session. Liberty is under siege. Just remember what happened in the opinion pages of the New York Times for merely publishing an opinion that was held by the majority of Americans but rejected by the progressive mob. Senator Cotton put forward a well-researched op-ed--requested by the Times--that advocated the President, only as a last resort, should use the Insurrection Act to put down the terrorist activity we saw in too many cities over the past few months. Again, a national poll held that 58 percent of registered voters agreed with Senator Cotton, but some reporters at the New York Times and the progressive mob didn't. They raised such a protest that the head of the editorial page issued an apology, claiming that it wasn't to the standards of the Times, that it was too extreme. And that wasn't enough for the mob. He was fired. Before the ``cancel culture'' mob goes further still to embrace their Presidential candidate--who has gone through enough twists and turns to make sure that he, too, conforms to the progressive demands--we should all remember our Nation was founded on liberty, and it will only endure with true liberty. That means being willing to live together in the midst of all kinds of diversity, especially diversity of thought. So, as we began, we can't forget what this is all about: The terrorists ran, unchecked, in Portland for 60 days. No one raced to stop them. Federal officials had to step in because the State and local governments wouldn't allow their law enforcement to police the riots. Scenes like we saw in Portland will not happen in Oklahoma, but theycould happen in other cities where lawlessness is pervasive. Thankfully, we have a President who stands up for law and order and for our law enforcers. Where would we be without our brave police and sheriffs? I hope we never find that out. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4722 | null | 1,081 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about coronavirus, now clearly the worst pandemic in a century. I will also speak briefly about the need for a national response plan that is guided by science and public health, not politics. The first case of COVID-19 was reported in the United States on January 20. In the intervening 6 months, we have seen cases climb, then fall, and now surge once again. More than 4 million Americans have been infected with coronavirus. So far, more than 155,000 have died. Every day for the last 4 months, I have received an update from my staff on coronavirus numbers. I have watched, day by day, the number of positive cases climb. In California right now, 30 of our 58 counties have had more than 1,000 positive cases. The numbers just go up and up and up. It becomes impossible to look at the charts and graphs and not come to the conclusion that we have to do more--and maybe significantly more. Simply put, this is the worst pandemic in my lifetime. You have to go back more than 100 years to the Spanish flu epidemic to find something comparable. But the unprecedented scale of this crisis is no excuse for our failure to respond more forcefully and in a nationally coordinated manner. Once we realized the scale of the outbreak in the spring, both by the increased cases at home, as well as monitoring stricken countries like Italy, it became clear that we needed strong leadership from the top. We didn't get that. Instead, the White House and President Trump blamed states for the lack of testing equipment, the hoarding of sanitizing supplies and the absence of protective gear. In March, President Trump said, ``I don't take responsibility at all.'' That is a direct quote from the President of the United States, in the midst of a global pandemic with body counts rising around the country. We must do better. More recently, during the renewed surge in cases, we have seen a repeat of those problems. We know we need more testing supplies and protective equipment, but rather than implement the Defense Production Act and stock up on supplies, we saw little action from the White House. I have been thinking back to the early days of the pandemic. In March, San Francisco's Bay Area imposed the first significant stay-at-home order in the country. California soon followed. It was criticized at the time as an overreaction, but it succeeded in slowing the rate of spread, and the death toll remained lower than many other large States. Soon, much of the country had similar orders in place. In April and early May, there was a sense of shared sacrifice. People stayed at home, schools closed, many lost their jobs. Our way of life shifted in the most abrupt way since at least 9/11, if not World War 11. But the understanding was that we made these sacrifices because they would help control the virus. We would ``bend the curve,'' we would produce sufficient protective gear, and we would make it safe for people to return to their lives. The idea was that, by the end of summer, life would return--if not back to normal, at least back to some version of it. It is now almost August. The number of new cases climbs each day. K-12 schools have announced they will be closed in the fall. Many colleges are following suit. Job losses continue, with more than 30 million still receiving unemployment benefits. Simply put, America failed the test of reopening. If we had responded like other countries, with comprehensive national policies for mask use, avoiding crowds and increasing testing capacity, we could have been returning to normal life right now. Instead, many cities and States are rolling back their reopening plans and may have to reinstitute stay-at-home orders to get the Nation back to where we were before Memorial Day. President Trump last week said the administration is ``in the process of developing a strategy'' to fight coronavirus. At some point, we will want to know why it took 7 months for him to acknowledge a national plan was necessary. Right now, however, we need to focus on what that plan will entail. Just as importantly, we need to focus on who should have input into the tenets of such a plan--in a word, ``experts.'' This is a challenge that requires the combined minds of our best and brightest, particularly public health and infectious disease experts. This is not an arena for politics, period. So what do those public health experts propose? After reading material and listening to a range of opinions, there are five areas that appear to have broad consensus: First, we need to ensure that masks are used everywhere. Early on, we knew simple acts like talking and even breathing caused airborne transmission of the virus, especially in confined areas like office buildings. We also knew individuals who weren't showing symptoms could spread the virus to others because symptoms don't appear for 5 to 7 days. And research continues to show masks are one of the best tools to slow the spread of the virus. Scientific modeling is clear: Masks prevent the spread of the virus. Yet even with this knowledge, we still continue to see a patchwork of policies around the country. A national mask mandate would dramatically reduce the spread of the virus, especially by those who don't yet show symptoms. On July 14, the CDC called on all Americans to wear masks. CDC Director Robert Redfield said if all Americans wore masks, the current surge in cases could be brought under control within 2 months. Masks work. We need a national mask mandate. The second step is a national program for testing. Months into this pandemic, we continue to hear stories of people not able to receive a test. In some cases, my office has heard from people with fevers and coughing but are still told to stay home and not get tested. Simply put, anyone who wants to be tested should be, and the results should be returned within 24 hours, not a week later. Studies have found that if we only test individuals who show symptoms, it is too late to stop further transmission. That means States and cities need sufficient supplies to dramatically increase testing. At this time, that is not happening. A national testing strategy would help coordinate action and prevent States from having to compete against each other. The third step, related to increased testing, is ensuring we have enough testing supplies and safety equipment for frontline workers. The President could quickly implement the Defense Production Act. This law would allow the Federal Government to address supply chain issues and increase production and distribution of testing supplies, medical equipment and personal protective equipment. This should have been done months ago, but so far, the President has only selectively used this tool. He should broaden its use immediately. It is unconscionable that 6 months after this virus appeared on our shores, essential workers around the country still lack personal protective equipment, not only doctors and nurses but grocery clerks, agricultural workers, public transportation operators, educator; and many others. These individuals are putting themselves at risk to provide necessaryservices to the public, and they should have access to masks and other equipment to keep themselves safe. The fourth step is expanding contact tracing, another area where we see a patchwork of policies across the country rather than a cohesive national effort. To work, contact tracing must occur immediately after an individual is found to be infected. A team determines everyone with whom an infected individual had recent close contact and encourages them to get tested, self-isolate, and monitor their health. Right now, on average, everyone who gets COVID passes it to more than one other person. In other words, the spread is increasing, often by those who don't know they have been exposed. Contact tracing will help solve that. The logistics, however, often aren't feasible for local governments. That is why a Federal contact tracing program, possibly using Peace Corps and AmeriCorps volunteers as has been suggested, is so important. Finally, the fifth area is the need for a plan to manufacture and distribute a vaccine once it is developed. A key component is determining priorities for vaccine distribution. Should it go first to essential workers on the frontlines? Or should it go to people most likely to get the virus, the vulnerable populations, and those in hard-hit areas? These aren't easy questions, and we should work on answers now. We also need to handle the logistics involved to ensure rapid distribution of the vaccine nationwide. These are obvious challenges, but they are also complex, and we need a plan in place now, ahead of vaccine development, rather than waiting until a vaccine is developed. In addition to those five health-related planks, I also believe we need a coordinated plan to help the small businesses and workers suffering during this time. One example is the Paycheck Protection Program that helped many small businesses. The program provides forgivable loans if businesses use funds on employee salaries and other necessities to remain afloat, which will allow them to quickly reopen when it is safe. Another example is the additional $600 in unemployment benefits in the CARES Act. This assistance allows millions of families to pay rent, cover bills, buy food, and contribute to the economic recovery. Unfortunately, that vital aid has lapsed. Since mid-March, more than 60 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits. Today, more than 30 million people continue to depend on these benefits. We can't cut these lifelines until jobs are available for those out of work. If the economy remains shuttered and we do nothing to help families and businesses, we are telling millions of Americans that we don't care they are hurting. Moreover, we are hurting our own economic recovery by taking aid from those who most need it, the very people who are most likely to spend it to support the economy. The Federal Government exists for a reason, and that is to help Americans do things they can't do for themselves. The same goes for States, which are responsible and powerful but can't do it on their own. A global pandemic calls for a robust Federal response, which must entail a national response plan. And that plan has to be based on science and on data, not politics. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FEINSTEIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4725 | null | 1,082 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about coronavirus, now clearly the worst pandemic in a century. I will also speak briefly about the need for a national response plan that is guided by science and public health, not politics. The first case of COVID-19 was reported in the United States on January 20. In the intervening 6 months, we have seen cases climb, then fall, and now surge once again. More than 4 million Americans have been infected with coronavirus. So far, more than 155,000 have died. Every day for the last 4 months, I have received an update from my staff on coronavirus numbers. I have watched, day by day, the number of positive cases climb. In California right now, 30 of our 58 counties have had more than 1,000 positive cases. The numbers just go up and up and up. It becomes impossible to look at the charts and graphs and not come to the conclusion that we have to do more--and maybe significantly more. Simply put, this is the worst pandemic in my lifetime. You have to go back more than 100 years to the Spanish flu epidemic to find something comparable. But the unprecedented scale of this crisis is no excuse for our failure to respond more forcefully and in a nationally coordinated manner. Once we realized the scale of the outbreak in the spring, both by the increased cases at home, as well as monitoring stricken countries like Italy, it became clear that we needed strong leadership from the top. We didn't get that. Instead, the White House and President Trump blamed states for the lack of testing equipment, the hoarding of sanitizing supplies and the absence of protective gear. In March, President Trump said, ``I don't take responsibility at all.'' That is a direct quote from the President of the United States, in the midst of a global pandemic with body counts rising around the country. We must do better. More recently, during the renewed surge in cases, we have seen a repeat of those problems. We know we need more testing supplies and protective equipment, but rather than implement the Defense Production Act and stock up on supplies, we saw little action from the White House. I have been thinking back to the early days of the pandemic. In March, San Francisco's Bay Area imposed the first significant stay-at-home order in the country. California soon followed. It was criticized at the time as an overreaction, but it succeeded in slowing the rate of spread, and the death toll remained lower than many other large States. Soon, much of the country had similar orders in place. In April and early May, there was a sense of shared sacrifice. People stayed at home, schools closed, many lost their jobs. Our way of life shifted in the most abrupt way since at least 9/11, if not World War 11. But the understanding was that we made these sacrifices because they would help control the virus. We would ``bend the curve,'' we would produce sufficient protective gear, and we would make it safe for people to return to their lives. The idea was that, by the end of summer, life would return--if not back to normal, at least back to some version of it. It is now almost August. The number of new cases climbs each day. K-12 schools have announced they will be closed in the fall. Many colleges are following suit. Job losses continue, with more than 30 million still receiving unemployment benefits. Simply put, America failed the test of reopening. If we had responded like other countries, with comprehensive national policies for mask use, avoiding crowds and increasing testing capacity, we could have been returning to normal life right now. Instead, many cities and States are rolling back their reopening plans and may have to reinstitute stay-at-home orders to get the Nation back to where we were before Memorial Day. President Trump last week said the administration is ``in the process of developing a strategy'' to fight coronavirus. At some point, we will want to know why it took 7 months for him to acknowledge a national plan was necessary. Right now, however, we need to focus on what that plan will entail. Just as importantly, we need to focus on who should have input into the tenets of such a plan--in a word, ``experts.'' This is a challenge that requires the combined minds of our best and brightest, particularly public health and infectious disease experts. This is not an arena for politics, period. So what do those public health experts propose? After reading material and listening to a range of opinions, there are five areas that appear to have broad consensus: First, we need to ensure that masks are used everywhere. Early on, we knew simple acts like talking and even breathing caused airborne transmission of the virus, especially in confined areas like office buildings. We also knew individuals who weren't showing symptoms could spread the virus to others because symptoms don't appear for 5 to 7 days. And research continues to show masks are one of the best tools to slow the spread of the virus. Scientific modeling is clear: Masks prevent the spread of the virus. Yet even with this knowledge, we still continue to see a patchwork of policies around the country. A national mask mandate would dramatically reduce the spread of the virus, especially by those who don't yet show symptoms. On July 14, the CDC called on all Americans to wear masks. CDC Director Robert Redfield said if all Americans wore masks, the current surge in cases could be brought under control within 2 months. Masks work. We need a national mask mandate. The second step is a national program for testing. Months into this pandemic, we continue to hear stories of people not able to receive a test. In some cases, my office has heard from people with fevers and coughing but are still told to stay home and not get tested. Simply put, anyone who wants to be tested should be, and the results should be returned within 24 hours, not a week later. Studies have found that if we only test individuals who show symptoms, it is too late to stop further transmission. That means States and cities need sufficient supplies to dramatically increase testing. At this time, that is not happening. A national testing strategy would help coordinate action and prevent States from having to compete against each other. The third step, related to increased testing, is ensuring we have enough testing supplies and safety equipment for frontline workers. The President could quickly implement the Defense Production Act. This law would allow the Federal Government to address supply chain issues and increase production and distribution of testing supplies, medical equipment and personal protective equipment. This should have been done months ago, but so far, the President has only selectively used this tool. He should broaden its use immediately. It is unconscionable that 6 months after this virus appeared on our shores, essential workers around the country still lack personal protective equipment, not only doctors and nurses but grocery clerks, agricultural workers, public transportation operators, educator; and many others. These individuals are putting themselves at risk to provide necessaryservices to the public, and they should have access to masks and other equipment to keep themselves safe. The fourth step is expanding contact tracing, another area where we see a patchwork of policies across the country rather than a cohesive national effort. To work, contact tracing must occur immediately after an individual is found to be infected. A team determines everyone with whom an infected individual had recent close contact and encourages them to get tested, self-isolate, and monitor their health. Right now, on average, everyone who gets COVID passes it to more than one other person. In other words, the spread is increasing, often by those who don't know they have been exposed. Contact tracing will help solve that. The logistics, however, often aren't feasible for local governments. That is why a Federal contact tracing program, possibly using Peace Corps and AmeriCorps volunteers as has been suggested, is so important. Finally, the fifth area is the need for a plan to manufacture and distribute a vaccine once it is developed. A key component is determining priorities for vaccine distribution. Should it go first to essential workers on the frontlines? Or should it go to people most likely to get the virus, the vulnerable populations, and those in hard-hit areas? These aren't easy questions, and we should work on answers now. We also need to handle the logistics involved to ensure rapid distribution of the vaccine nationwide. These are obvious challenges, but they are also complex, and we need a plan in place now, ahead of vaccine development, rather than waiting until a vaccine is developed. In addition to those five health-related planks, I also believe we need a coordinated plan to help the small businesses and workers suffering during this time. One example is the Paycheck Protection Program that helped many small businesses. The program provides forgivable loans if businesses use funds on employee salaries and other necessities to remain afloat, which will allow them to quickly reopen when it is safe. Another example is the additional $600 in unemployment benefits in the CARES Act. This assistance allows millions of families to pay rent, cover bills, buy food, and contribute to the economic recovery. Unfortunately, that vital aid has lapsed. Since mid-March, more than 60 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits. Today, more than 30 million people continue to depend on these benefits. We can't cut these lifelines until jobs are available for those out of work. If the economy remains shuttered and we do nothing to help families and businesses, we are telling millions of Americans that we don't care they are hurting. Moreover, we are hurting our own economic recovery by taking aid from those who most need it, the very people who are most likely to spend it to support the economy. The Federal Government exists for a reason, and that is to help Americans do things they can't do for themselves. The same goes for States, which are responsible and powerful but can't do it on their own. A global pandemic calls for a robust Federal response, which must entail a national response plan. And that plan has to be based on science and on data, not politics. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FEINSTEIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4725 | null | 1,083 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-5218. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report to Congress on Nurse Education, Practice, Quality and Retention Programs; Fiscal Year 2019''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-5219. A communication from the Chief of the Regulatory Coordination Division, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements'' (RIN1615- AC18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 3, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5220. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees during Fiscal Year 2020'' (RIN0651-AD31) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5221. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Home Visits in Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers During COVID-19 National Emergency'' (RIN2900-AQ96) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5222. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Veterans' Group Life Insurance Application Period in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency'' (RIN2900-AQ98) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5223. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``VA Acquisition Regulation: Administrative and Information Matters; Publicizing Contract Actions; and Termination of Contracts'' (RIN2900-AQ77) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5224. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Veterans Employment Pay for Success Grant Program'' (RIN2900-AP72) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5225. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Informed Consent and Advance Directives'' (RIN2900-AQ97) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5226. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Health Professional Scholarship Program'' (RIN2900-AQ62) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5227. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers Improvements and Amendments under the VA Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018'' (RIN2900-AQ48) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5228. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule - Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN3064-AF55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5229. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Interim Rule: Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN7100-AF92) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5230. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule-- Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN3064-AF08) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5231. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN1557-AE98) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5232. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN1557-AE69) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 8, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5233. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule--Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN7100-AF62) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5234. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Reducing Barriers to Using Telehealth and Remote Patient Monitoring for Pediatric Populations under Medicaid Final Report''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-5235. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report on Abuse-Deterrent Opioid Formulations and Access Barriers Under Medicare''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-5236. A communication from the Acting Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the adjustment of timing provisions in the Copyright Act related to the declaration of the COVID-19 national emergency; to the Committee on the Judiciary | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4726-4 | null | 1,084 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-5218. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report to Congress on Nurse Education, Practice, Quality and Retention Programs; Fiscal Year 2019''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-5219. A communication from the Chief of the Regulatory Coordination Division, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements'' (RIN1615- AC18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on August 3, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5220. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees during Fiscal Year 2020'' (RIN0651-AD31) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5221. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Home Visits in Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers During COVID-19 National Emergency'' (RIN2900-AQ96) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5222. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Veterans' Group Life Insurance Application Period in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency'' (RIN2900-AQ98) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5223. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``VA Acquisition Regulation: Administrative and Information Matters; Publicizing Contract Actions; and Termination of Contracts'' (RIN2900-AQ77) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5224. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Veterans Employment Pay for Success Grant Program'' (RIN2900-AP72) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5225. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Informed Consent and Advance Directives'' (RIN2900-AQ97) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5226. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Health Professional Scholarship Program'' (RIN2900-AQ62) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5227. A communication from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers Improvements and Amendments under the VA Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018'' (RIN2900-AQ48) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 31, 2020; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5228. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule - Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN3064-AF55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5229. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Interim Rule: Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN7100-AF92) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5230. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule-- Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN3064-AF08) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5231. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN1557-AE98) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5232. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN1557-AE69) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 8, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5233. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule--Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities'' (RIN7100-AF62) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5234. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Reducing Barriers to Using Telehealth and Remote Patient Monitoring for Pediatric Populations under Medicaid Final Report''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-5235. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report on Abuse-Deterrent Opioid Formulations and Access Barriers Under Medicare''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-5236. A communication from the Acting Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the adjustment of timing provisions in the Copyright Act related to the declaration of the COVID-19 national emergency; to the Committee on the Judiciary | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4726-4 | null | 1,085 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Duckworth): S. 4407. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 to give the Department of Education the authority to award competitive grants to eligible entities to establish, expand, or support school-based mentoring programs to assist at-risk students in middle school and high school in developing cognitive and social-emotional skills to prepare them for success in high school, postsecondary education, and the workforce; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4731-2 | null | 1,086 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Duckworth): S. 4407. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 to give the Department of Education the authority to award competitive grants to eligible entities to establish, expand, or support school-based mentoring programs to assist at-risk students in middle school and high school in developing cognitive and social-emotional skills to prepare them for success in high school, postsecondary education, and the workforce; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-04-pt1-PgS4731 | null | 1,087 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, watch the news or read the newspapers, and you will know that there are a lot of deliberations going on to help with the problems that we have of people being unemployed, the pandemic we are fighting, and getting the economy up and running. While those negotiations are going on, every once in a while, some of us on this side of the aisle try to get things to help people who have needs. A few days ago, the Democratic leader objected to one of these attempts, which was a short-term extension of the Federal unemployment supplement that was created by this body as part of the CARES Act. Remember, the CARES Act passed unanimously by this body back in March. Those things are running out, and we are trying to get them extended. This effort to get this short-term extension was to provide for Americans who need the continued help while talks continue about a longer extension and even more relief. Common sense ought to play a role. There doesn't seem to be any downside to a temporary extension, but there apparently was a political upside to the other side's blocking it. I hope we can work together and that the Democratic leader will let his Members work with their Republican colleagues on a path forward. This partisan ``my way or the highway'' approach just doesn't work, particularly in a body in which it takes 60 votes to get things done. These objections are not how we got the CARES Act passed in the first place, and it is not how we will continue to deliver for the American people now if we don't get more cooperation. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4883-6 | null | 1,088 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, first, I extend the Senate's condolences to the people of Lebanon following yesterday's horrific explosion in Beirut. Reports indicate that at least 100 have died and that more than 4,000 others were injured. The Lebanese people have seen more than their share of tragedy--civil war, Syrian occupation, terrorism and assassination, sectarian violence, economic and political corruption, the burden of caring for more than a million refugees fleeing Syria. Now, unfortunately, once again, in the wake of great tragedy, the Lebanese Armed Forces will have to demonstrate they serve the state of Lebanon and its people, not a political party or sect. Since the end of Syrian occupation, the LAF has demonstrated it can be a unifying and national force, largely free from sectarianism that corrodes other Lebanese institutions. Now it must do so again The people of Beirut are beginning the hard work of rebuilding their city. Their nation continues its hard work to restore its democracy and sovereignty. On these fronts, the Senateand the American people stand with them in their journey. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4883-8 | null | 1,089 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on an entirely different matter, stop me if the story I am about to tell sounds familiar. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader summon President Trump's representatives to the Capitol. They meet for a long while. The Democrats emerge, saying they have permitted a few millimeters of progress, but a deal is still far off, leaving millions of Americans in the lurch. Then they continue to push their $3 trillion wish list that even their own Democratic colleagues brush off as absurd. We have had variations on this theme daily for more than a week now. Yesterday, the Speaker of the House called their far-left proposal a ``well-developed strategic plan,'' but even Members of her own caucus know that is not true. Back when the Speaker's wish list was rammed through the House, one Democratic Member came right out and said that the so-called Heroes Act ``isn't a plan. It's a wish list.'' Another said that Members of her caucus had taken the bill as ``an opportunity to make political statements . . . that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law.'' Others said it was ``not focused'' and ``partisan gamesmanship.'' These are Democrats I am quoting. Even the Speaker's own rank and file know it is comical to say your ``strategic plan'' for COVID-19 involves sending taxpayer checks to people who are here illegally, paying people more not to work than essential workers earn by working, soil health programs--so-called ``environmental justice'' grants--and a massive tax cut aimed directly at wealthy people in New York and California. That last point needs special attention. Now, in ordinary negotiations, Members of Congress like to bring things home for their core supporters, but it is a little too on the nose for the Speaker from San Francisco and the Democratic leader from New York City to be holding up $1 trillion in emergency aid for the entire country unless they get big tax breaks for millionaires in their hometowns. Economists across the political spectrum say this demand of theirs is a bad idea because 94 percent of the benefit would flow to people who make north of $200,000. In the words of one progressive economist, who ought to be on their side: This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the economy heal and would not benefit the people who need help. Yet my friends in the Democratic leadership are not deterred. More than a week into these talks, they are still threatening to block any and all relief for struggling people unless big city penthouses get these tax cuts. The Democratic leader said just yesterday that he is still holding out for this. Now, this isn't the only bad policy they are hung up on. The Speaker and the Democratic leader continue to insist that Federal unemployment assistance should pay people more not to work than the essential workers who have kept working. Let me say that again. The Democratic position has been that these millions of laid-off people should get nothing unless they get a higher salary than the people who are still working. This isn't just bad economics if you are trying to reopen a country; it is also just simply unfair in the simplest terms. The Republicans want to keep providing some supplemental Federal unemployment. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Let me say that again. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Outside of the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House, even Democrats concede it is a bit upside down to pay people more not to work. Last week, the House Democratic majority leader said: ``It's not $600 or bust.'' Our colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, has said: ``We certainly understand we don't want to have higher benefits than what someone can make working.'' Just yesterday, the senior Senator from West Virginia stated plainly that Speaker Pelosi's position was untenable. ``I don't think we're going to stay at the $600.'' Let's bear in mind, even $200 would be eight times what the Democrats put in place with unified control of the government during the last crisis in 2009. It is unthinkable they will hold every bit of relief hostage unless we land back at $600 and pay workers a bonus if they do not help to reopen our country. Maybe the Speaker and the Democratic leader will get the memo from their colleagues sometime soon. Then there is the Democrats' demand for $1 trillion more to hand out to State and local governments even though they have only spent a fourth of the money we sent them back in March. Yesterday, I received an urgent letter from the city of Malibu, CA--and I promise I am not making this up--asking Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars for State and local governments because it has had to delay its ``conversion to an all-electric city fleet.'' I guess that is an emergency in Malibu when they can't keep buying brandnew electric cars as quickly as they would like. Well, this emergency is hitting most of America very differently. My constituents in Kentucky have bigger problems. They need actual relief to go straight to struggling families, and, frankly, they needed it yesterday, not a $1 trillion slush fund for bureaucrats who haven't spent what we sent them back in March. Those are just some of the fantasy items that are in the Democrats' demands. I haven't even gotten to all of the important things they left out. Their bill costs three times as much as the Senate Republicans' HEALS Act, but they skip over major, serious things that we took care of. The Democrats proposed fewer resources than the Republicans for the fund to help schools reopen safely. The Democrats completely shortchanged the successful Collins-Rubio Paycheck Protection Program, wherein our bill would fund a whole second round. The Democrats have no real equivalent to our proposals to strengthen domestic supply chains for PPE and critical resources, and they propose no legal protections at all for the doctors and nurses who have fought this unknown enemy or for the schools, universities, churches, and businesses that are trying to reopen. Apparently, those soil health experiments and diversity initiatives didn't leave enough room for the critical policies that would actually help the country. But, remember, our Democratic colleagues told us from the beginning their goal was never a targeted plan for COVID-19. In March, one of the Speaker's top lieutenants said the Democrats should view this deadly disease and mass unemployment as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' Speaker Pelosi herself called this crisis a ``wonderful opportunity.'' It is clear they view it that way because, while Americans are struggling, the Democratic leaders have moved about 1 inch in 8 days. For the sake of the millions and millions who need more help, let's hope they decide to get serious soon. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4884 | null | 1,090 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on an entirely different matter, stop me if the story I am about to tell sounds familiar. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader summon President Trump's representatives to the Capitol. They meet for a long while. The Democrats emerge, saying they have permitted a few millimeters of progress, but a deal is still far off, leaving millions of Americans in the lurch. Then they continue to push their $3 trillion wish list that even their own Democratic colleagues brush off as absurd. We have had variations on this theme daily for more than a week now. Yesterday, the Speaker of the House called their far-left proposal a ``well-developed strategic plan,'' but even Members of her own caucus know that is not true. Back when the Speaker's wish list was rammed through the House, one Democratic Member came right out and said that the so-called Heroes Act ``isn't a plan. It's a wish list.'' Another said that Members of her caucus had taken the bill as ``an opportunity to make political statements . . . that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law.'' Others said it was ``not focused'' and ``partisan gamesmanship.'' These are Democrats I am quoting. Even the Speaker's own rank and file know it is comical to say your ``strategic plan'' for COVID-19 involves sending taxpayer checks to people who are here illegally, paying people more not to work than essential workers earn by working, soil health programs--so-called ``environmental justice'' grants--and a massive tax cut aimed directly at wealthy people in New York and California. That last point needs special attention. Now, in ordinary negotiations, Members of Congress like to bring things home for their core supporters, but it is a little too on the nose for the Speaker from San Francisco and the Democratic leader from New York City to be holding up $1 trillion in emergency aid for the entire country unless they get big tax breaks for millionaires in their hometowns. Economists across the political spectrum say this demand of theirs is a bad idea because 94 percent of the benefit would flow to people who make north of $200,000. In the words of one progressive economist, who ought to be on their side: This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the economy heal and would not benefit the people who need help. Yet my friends in the Democratic leadership are not deterred. More than a week into these talks, they are still threatening to block any and all relief for struggling people unless big city penthouses get these tax cuts. The Democratic leader said just yesterday that he is still holding out for this. Now, this isn't the only bad policy they are hung up on. The Speaker and the Democratic leader continue to insist that Federal unemployment assistance should pay people more not to work than the essential workers who have kept working. Let me say that again. The Democratic position has been that these millions of laid-off people should get nothing unless they get a higher salary than the people who are still working. This isn't just bad economics if you are trying to reopen a country; it is also just simply unfair in the simplest terms. The Republicans want to keep providing some supplemental Federal unemployment. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Let me say that again. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Outside of the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House, even Democrats concede it is a bit upside down to pay people more not to work. Last week, the House Democratic majority leader said: ``It's not $600 or bust.'' Our colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, has said: ``We certainly understand we don't want to have higher benefits than what someone can make working.'' Just yesterday, the senior Senator from West Virginia stated plainly that Speaker Pelosi's position was untenable. ``I don't think we're going to stay at the $600.'' Let's bear in mind, even $200 would be eight times what the Democrats put in place with unified control of the government during the last crisis in 2009. It is unthinkable they will hold every bit of relief hostage unless we land back at $600 and pay workers a bonus if they do not help to reopen our country. Maybe the Speaker and the Democratic leader will get the memo from their colleagues sometime soon. Then there is the Democrats' demand for $1 trillion more to hand out to State and local governments even though they have only spent a fourth of the money we sent them back in March. Yesterday, I received an urgent letter from the city of Malibu, CA--and I promise I am not making this up--asking Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars for State and local governments because it has had to delay its ``conversion to an all-electric city fleet.'' I guess that is an emergency in Malibu when they can't keep buying brandnew electric cars as quickly as they would like. Well, this emergency is hitting most of America very differently. My constituents in Kentucky have bigger problems. They need actual relief to go straight to struggling families, and, frankly, they needed it yesterday, not a $1 trillion slush fund for bureaucrats who haven't spent what we sent them back in March. Those are just some of the fantasy items that are in the Democrats' demands. I haven't even gotten to all of the important things they left out. Their bill costs three times as much as the Senate Republicans' HEALS Act, but they skip over major, serious things that we took care of. The Democrats proposed fewer resources than the Republicans for the fund to help schools reopen safely. The Democrats completely shortchanged the successful Collins-Rubio Paycheck Protection Program, wherein our bill would fund a whole second round. The Democrats have no real equivalent to our proposals to strengthen domestic supply chains for PPE and critical resources, and they propose no legal protections at all for the doctors and nurses who have fought this unknown enemy or for the schools, universities, churches, and businesses that are trying to reopen. Apparently, those soil health experiments and diversity initiatives didn't leave enough room for the critical policies that would actually help the country. But, remember, our Democratic colleagues told us from the beginning their goal was never a targeted plan for COVID-19. In March, one of the Speaker's top lieutenants said the Democrats should view this deadly disease and mass unemployment as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' Speaker Pelosi herself called this crisis a ``wonderful opportunity.'' It is clear they view it that way because, while Americans are struggling, the Democratic leaders have moved about 1 inch in 8 days. For the sake of the millions and millions who need more help, let's hope they decide to get serious soon. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4884 | null | 1,091 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on an entirely different matter, stop me if the story I am about to tell sounds familiar. The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader summon President Trump's representatives to the Capitol. They meet for a long while. The Democrats emerge, saying they have permitted a few millimeters of progress, but a deal is still far off, leaving millions of Americans in the lurch. Then they continue to push their $3 trillion wish list that even their own Democratic colleagues brush off as absurd. We have had variations on this theme daily for more than a week now. Yesterday, the Speaker of the House called their far-left proposal a ``well-developed strategic plan,'' but even Members of her own caucus know that is not true. Back when the Speaker's wish list was rammed through the House, one Democratic Member came right out and said that the so-called Heroes Act ``isn't a plan. It's a wish list.'' Another said that Members of her caucus had taken the bill as ``an opportunity to make political statements . . . that goes far beyond pandemic relief and has no chance at becoming law.'' Others said it was ``not focused'' and ``partisan gamesmanship.'' These are Democrats I am quoting. Even the Speaker's own rank and file know it is comical to say your ``strategic plan'' for COVID-19 involves sending taxpayer checks to people who are here illegally, paying people more not to work than essential workers earn by working, soil health programs--so-called ``environmental justice'' grants--and a massive tax cut aimed directly at wealthy people in New York and California. That last point needs special attention. Now, in ordinary negotiations, Members of Congress like to bring things home for their core supporters, but it is a little too on the nose for the Speaker from San Francisco and the Democratic leader from New York City to be holding up $1 trillion in emergency aid for the entire country unless they get big tax breaks for millionaires in their hometowns. Economists across the political spectrum say this demand of theirs is a bad idea because 94 percent of the benefit would flow to people who make north of $200,000. In the words of one progressive economist, who ought to be on their side: This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the economy heal and would not benefit the people who need help. Yet my friends in the Democratic leadership are not deterred. More than a week into these talks, they are still threatening to block any and all relief for struggling people unless big city penthouses get these tax cuts. The Democratic leader said just yesterday that he is still holding out for this. Now, this isn't the only bad policy they are hung up on. The Speaker and the Democratic leader continue to insist that Federal unemployment assistance should pay people more not to work than the essential workers who have kept working. Let me say that again. The Democratic position has been that these millions of laid-off people should get nothing unless they get a higher salary than the people who are still working. This isn't just bad economics if you are trying to reopen a country; it is also just simply unfair in the simplest terms. The Republicans want to keep providing some supplemental Federal unemployment. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Let me say that again. We just don't think it is remotely fair for the Federal Government to tax essential workers who have kept working every day so Uncle Sam can pay their neighbors a higher salary to stay home. Outside of the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House, even Democrats concede it is a bit upside down to pay people more not to work. Last week, the House Democratic majority leader said: ``It's not $600 or bust.'' Our colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, has said: ``We certainly understand we don't want to have higher benefits than what someone can make working.'' Just yesterday, the senior Senator from West Virginia stated plainly that Speaker Pelosi's position was untenable. ``I don't think we're going to stay at the $600.'' Let's bear in mind, even $200 would be eight times what the Democrats put in place with unified control of the government during the last crisis in 2009. It is unthinkable they will hold every bit of relief hostage unless we land back at $600 and pay workers a bonus if they do not help to reopen our country. Maybe the Speaker and the Democratic leader will get the memo from their colleagues sometime soon. Then there is the Democrats' demand for $1 trillion more to hand out to State and local governments even though they have only spent a fourth of the money we sent them back in March. Yesterday, I received an urgent letter from the city of Malibu, CA--and I promise I am not making this up--asking Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars for State and local governments because it has had to delay its ``conversion to an all-electric city fleet.'' I guess that is an emergency in Malibu when they can't keep buying brandnew electric cars as quickly as they would like. Well, this emergency is hitting most of America very differently. My constituents in Kentucky have bigger problems. They need actual relief to go straight to struggling families, and, frankly, they needed it yesterday, not a $1 trillion slush fund for bureaucrats who haven't spent what we sent them back in March. Those are just some of the fantasy items that are in the Democrats' demands. I haven't even gotten to all of the important things they left out. Their bill costs three times as much as the Senate Republicans' HEALS Act, but they skip over major, serious things that we took care of. The Democrats proposed fewer resources than the Republicans for the fund to help schools reopen safely. The Democrats completely shortchanged the successful Collins-Rubio Paycheck Protection Program, wherein our bill would fund a whole second round. The Democrats have no real equivalent to our proposals to strengthen domestic supply chains for PPE and critical resources, and they propose no legal protections at all for the doctors and nurses who have fought this unknown enemy or for the schools, universities, churches, and businesses that are trying to reopen. Apparently, those soil health experiments and diversity initiatives didn't leave enough room for the critical policies that would actually help the country. But, remember, our Democratic colleagues told us from the beginning their goal was never a targeted plan for COVID-19. In March, one of the Speaker's top lieutenants said the Democrats should view this deadly disease and mass unemployment as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' Speaker Pelosi herself called this crisis a ``wonderful opportunity.'' It is clear they view it that way because, while Americans are struggling, the Democratic leaders have moved about 1 inch in 8 days. For the sake of the millions and millions who need more help, let's hope they decide to get serious soon. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4884 | null | 1,092 |
formal | every single time | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, negotiations on the next round of COVID relief continued yesterday and will continue again today. Speaker Pelosi and I are making progress with the White House, but we remain far apart on a large number of issues. As I mentioned yesterday, the fundamental disagreement between our two parties is the scope and severity of the problem. This is the greatest economic crisis America has faced in 75 years and the greatest health crisis in 100. There must be a relief package commensurate with the size of this historic challenge. A skinny package--a package that doesn't solve so many of the problems that America faces--would hurt the American people, and we cannot have it. But our Republican friends are wedded ideologically to the idea that government shouldn't take forceful action; that we should leave the welfare of the American people to the whims of the private sector. It just doesn't work like that, especially in a time of national emergency. The private sector cannot do it. While we have started to generate some forward momentum, we need our partners in the White House to go much further on a number of issues, let alone the Republican Senate, where 20 or so Republicans, by the majority leader's admission, don't want to do anything. For example, the administration has finally come around to the view that we should extend the moratorium on evictions, but they continue to refuse to provide actual assistance to the renters themselves. What good does that do? We can prevent Americans from being kicked out of their apartments for another few months, but if they can't pay the rent, they will be right back at square one when the moratorium expires, with even more unpaid bills piled up. Extending the moratorium on evictions solves only one-half of the problem. Republicans continue to stonewall support for State, local, and Tribal governments, which have already shed more than a million public service jobs this year and will continue to lay off teachers, firefighters, and more if Congress does nothing. In the early days of the crisis, State and local governments fought this disease basically on their own. The Trump administration couldn't be bothered to coordinate a national response or supply them with the necessary resources. Now Leader McConnell and others on the Republican side say our States should just go bankrupt. They put zero into their proposal for State and local and would like Republican Senators to go home and tell their Governors, tell their mayors, and tell their county executives: We want zero for you. That is what our leader is for. Well, it is not acceptable. On unemployment insurance, a few Senate Republicans have belatedly accepted the view we should extend the enhanced benefit of $600 for an extended period of time, as Democrats have proposed and voted for in the House. Of course, many Senate Republicans--most Senate Republicans--still object to that, but at least a few have come around. At the moment, however, the White House is not there, and we are not going to strike a deal unless we extend the unemployment benefits, which have kept nearly 12 million Americans out of poverty. The same goes for healthcare, testing, and tracing. How is it that everyone in the White House can get tested, everyone in the NFL can get tested, but average Americans still cannot access tests easily or get results back fast enough? More than 7 months into the crisis, this administration does not have a plan or adequate capacity for testing and contact tracing. It is a shocking failure on the part of the Trump administration and the Republican Senators So Democrats are insisting that we provide enough resources to finally slow the spread and defeat this disease--the single most important thing to our recovery. The American people know that the Trump administration and their Republican adherents in the Senate are to blame for this huge failure in testing and tracing. They demand we act and act fully now, not with some half-baked, poorly funded plan that won't do the job, which is where the administration seems to be at right now. Democrats are insisting that every American should be able to vote this November safely and confidently in-person or by mail. COVID has affected how we will vote. Many more will vote by mail. There will be a need for polling places--maybe more of them--and a need to space people out as they vote. We are not going to stop fighting until State election systems and the post office, which is part of getting the mail there on time, get the resources they need. Elections are a wellspring of our democracy, and the only answer as to why neither the Republicans in the Senate nor the White House wants to do anything about it is they fear a free and fair election. That is inimicable to the core of this Republic. We are going to keep fighting. There have been alarming reports about recent failures at the post office, about residents in Michigan and Pennsylvania not getting their medicines or their paychecks for 3 weeks or more. The Postal Service is vital--and not just for elections but every single day. The new Postmaster, Mr. DeJoy, a big donor to President Trump--which many believe is his main qualification for being chosen--has enacted new guidelines in the post office that experts say will cause severe delays in mail delivery. Then he refused for weeks to even hold a phone call with Democrats, including myself, about this issue. I called three times. Mr. DeJoy evidently didn't have the time to call back when I was so concerned about mail delivery in New York and the rest of the country. So we have insisted to Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Meadows on meeting with Mr. DeJoy, which will take place later today. We need to resolve the problems at the post office--this lack of funding and the new regulations that get in the way of the timely delivery of the mail. We must resolve those issues in a way that allows mail to be delivered on time for the election and for the necessities that people need. Each and every one of these issues is critical, and there are many more. We need answers and movement on all of them, not just on one or two, but some of our Republican friends seem content to pass a bill--any bill--so they can check the box and go home. We cannot do that. We cannot agree to an inadequate bill and then go home while the virus continues to spread, the economy continues to deteriorate, and the country gets worse. So we are going to keep slogging through, step by step, inch by inch, until we achieve the caliber, the extent, the depth and breadth of the legislation that the American people need, deserve, and want. In stark contrast, the Republican leader has decided that he would rather lob partisan pot shots from the Senate floor each morning rather than join in productive negotiations. It is difficult to listen to the Republican leader spin such a malicious fiction about why Congress has yet to pass another round of relief when he can't even sit in the room with us and negotiate, when he can't even create a modicum of unity in his disturbingly divided caucus. For 3 months, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans put the Senate on pause when it came to the coronavirus. As COVID threats spread throughout the South and West, as States hit daily records for new cases and hospitalizations, as 50 million Americans filed for unemployment, the Senate Republican majority merely hummed along as if it were living in a different universe. Leader McConnell scheduled confirmation votes on rightwing judges. The chairman of Judiciary and Homeland Security held hearings on the President's wild conspiracy theories about the 2016 election and conducted desperate fishing expeditions, hoping to dig up dirt on the family of the President's political rivals. When the Republican majority did put legislation on the floor, it wasn't even remotely related to COVID. All through that time, Democrats came to the floor to practically beg ourcolleagues to consider COVID relief legislation. We asked consent to pass urgent relief no fewer than 15 times, and every single time, Republicans blocked our requests. Once Senate Republicans finally decided to write a bill, it was the legislative equivalent of a dumpster fire. Republicans bickered among themselves for over a week and a half before finally giving up. They didn't even release a coherent bill; just a series of nibbling proposals, rife with corporate giveaways and K Street carve-outs. Republicans proposed a tax break for three-martini lunches but no food assistance for hungry kids; $2 billion to build an FBI building to boost the value of the Trump hotel but not a dime to help Americans afford their rent Then, to top it all off, almost as soon as the Republican plan on COVID was released, it became clear that even Senate Republicans didn't support it. President Trump called it ``semi-irrelevant.'' ``Semi-irrelevant'' is what President Trump called the Republican proposals. Leader McConnell basically gave up and left Democrats and the White House to negotiate the next bill. So it strains reason for Leader McConnell to criticize those of us who are actually engaged in negotiations while he is intentionally staying out of it. His ``Alice in Wonderland'' rhetoric--flipping everything on its head and accusing the other side of the sins that Leader McConnell, in fact, is committing--is extremely counterproductive. Since Senate Republicans clearly cannot reach a consensus, any agreement is going to require a lot of Democratic votes. Suffice it to say, the Republican leader's rhetoric and positions are not helpful in that regard. While Republican leadership continues to sit on the sidelines, Democrats are in the room working hard. That is what the American people expect of us. They want to see us working to get something done in this time of extraordinary challenge. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4885-2 | null | 1,093 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, negotiations on the next round of COVID relief continued yesterday and will continue again today. Speaker Pelosi and I are making progress with the White House, but we remain far apart on a large number of issues. As I mentioned yesterday, the fundamental disagreement between our two parties is the scope and severity of the problem. This is the greatest economic crisis America has faced in 75 years and the greatest health crisis in 100. There must be a relief package commensurate with the size of this historic challenge. A skinny package--a package that doesn't solve so many of the problems that America faces--would hurt the American people, and we cannot have it. But our Republican friends are wedded ideologically to the idea that government shouldn't take forceful action; that we should leave the welfare of the American people to the whims of the private sector. It just doesn't work like that, especially in a time of national emergency. The private sector cannot do it. While we have started to generate some forward momentum, we need our partners in the White House to go much further on a number of issues, let alone the Republican Senate, where 20 or so Republicans, by the majority leader's admission, don't want to do anything. For example, the administration has finally come around to the view that we should extend the moratorium on evictions, but they continue to refuse to provide actual assistance to the renters themselves. What good does that do? We can prevent Americans from being kicked out of their apartments for another few months, but if they can't pay the rent, they will be right back at square one when the moratorium expires, with even more unpaid bills piled up. Extending the moratorium on evictions solves only one-half of the problem. Republicans continue to stonewall support for State, local, and Tribal governments, which have already shed more than a million public service jobs this year and will continue to lay off teachers, firefighters, and more if Congress does nothing. In the early days of the crisis, State and local governments fought this disease basically on their own. The Trump administration couldn't be bothered to coordinate a national response or supply them with the necessary resources. Now Leader McConnell and others on the Republican side say our States should just go bankrupt. They put zero into their proposal for State and local and would like Republican Senators to go home and tell their Governors, tell their mayors, and tell their county executives: We want zero for you. That is what our leader is for. Well, it is not acceptable. On unemployment insurance, a few Senate Republicans have belatedly accepted the view we should extend the enhanced benefit of $600 for an extended period of time, as Democrats have proposed and voted for in the House. Of course, many Senate Republicans--most Senate Republicans--still object to that, but at least a few have come around. At the moment, however, the White House is not there, and we are not going to strike a deal unless we extend the unemployment benefits, which have kept nearly 12 million Americans out of poverty. The same goes for healthcare, testing, and tracing. How is it that everyone in the White House can get tested, everyone in the NFL can get tested, but average Americans still cannot access tests easily or get results back fast enough? More than 7 months into the crisis, this administration does not have a plan or adequate capacity for testing and contact tracing. It is a shocking failure on the part of the Trump administration and the Republican Senators So Democrats are insisting that we provide enough resources to finally slow the spread and defeat this disease--the single most important thing to our recovery. The American people know that the Trump administration and their Republican adherents in the Senate are to blame for this huge failure in testing and tracing. They demand we act and act fully now, not with some half-baked, poorly funded plan that won't do the job, which is where the administration seems to be at right now. Democrats are insisting that every American should be able to vote this November safely and confidently in-person or by mail. COVID has affected how we will vote. Many more will vote by mail. There will be a need for polling places--maybe more of them--and a need to space people out as they vote. We are not going to stop fighting until State election systems and the post office, which is part of getting the mail there on time, get the resources they need. Elections are a wellspring of our democracy, and the only answer as to why neither the Republicans in the Senate nor the White House wants to do anything about it is they fear a free and fair election. That is inimicable to the core of this Republic. We are going to keep fighting. There have been alarming reports about recent failures at the post office, about residents in Michigan and Pennsylvania not getting their medicines or their paychecks for 3 weeks or more. The Postal Service is vital--and not just for elections but every single day. The new Postmaster, Mr. DeJoy, a big donor to President Trump--which many believe is his main qualification for being chosen--has enacted new guidelines in the post office that experts say will cause severe delays in mail delivery. Then he refused for weeks to even hold a phone call with Democrats, including myself, about this issue. I called three times. Mr. DeJoy evidently didn't have the time to call back when I was so concerned about mail delivery in New York and the rest of the country. So we have insisted to Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Meadows on meeting with Mr. DeJoy, which will take place later today. We need to resolve the problems at the post office--this lack of funding and the new regulations that get in the way of the timely delivery of the mail. We must resolve those issues in a way that allows mail to be delivered on time for the election and for the necessities that people need. Each and every one of these issues is critical, and there are many more. We need answers and movement on all of them, not just on one or two, but some of our Republican friends seem content to pass a bill--any bill--so they can check the box and go home. We cannot do that. We cannot agree to an inadequate bill and then go home while the virus continues to spread, the economy continues to deteriorate, and the country gets worse. So we are going to keep slogging through, step by step, inch by inch, until we achieve the caliber, the extent, the depth and breadth of the legislation that the American people need, deserve, and want. In stark contrast, the Republican leader has decided that he would rather lob partisan pot shots from the Senate floor each morning rather than join in productive negotiations. It is difficult to listen to the Republican leader spin such a malicious fiction about why Congress has yet to pass another round of relief when he can't even sit in the room with us and negotiate, when he can't even create a modicum of unity in his disturbingly divided caucus. For 3 months, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans put the Senate on pause when it came to the coronavirus. As COVID threats spread throughout the South and West, as States hit daily records for new cases and hospitalizations, as 50 million Americans filed for unemployment, the Senate Republican majority merely hummed along as if it were living in a different universe. Leader McConnell scheduled confirmation votes on rightwing judges. The chairman of Judiciary and Homeland Security held hearings on the President's wild conspiracy theories about the 2016 election and conducted desperate fishing expeditions, hoping to dig up dirt on the family of the President's political rivals. When the Republican majority did put legislation on the floor, it wasn't even remotely related to COVID. All through that time, Democrats came to the floor to practically beg ourcolleagues to consider COVID relief legislation. We asked consent to pass urgent relief no fewer than 15 times, and every single time, Republicans blocked our requests. Once Senate Republicans finally decided to write a bill, it was the legislative equivalent of a dumpster fire. Republicans bickered among themselves for over a week and a half before finally giving up. They didn't even release a coherent bill; just a series of nibbling proposals, rife with corporate giveaways and K Street carve-outs. Republicans proposed a tax break for three-martini lunches but no food assistance for hungry kids; $2 billion to build an FBI building to boost the value of the Trump hotel but not a dime to help Americans afford their rent Then, to top it all off, almost as soon as the Republican plan on COVID was released, it became clear that even Senate Republicans didn't support it. President Trump called it ``semi-irrelevant.'' ``Semi-irrelevant'' is what President Trump called the Republican proposals. Leader McConnell basically gave up and left Democrats and the White House to negotiate the next bill. So it strains reason for Leader McConnell to criticize those of us who are actually engaged in negotiations while he is intentionally staying out of it. His ``Alice in Wonderland'' rhetoric--flipping everything on its head and accusing the other side of the sins that Leader McConnell, in fact, is committing--is extremely counterproductive. Since Senate Republicans clearly cannot reach a consensus, any agreement is going to require a lot of Democratic votes. Suffice it to say, the Republican leader's rhetoric and positions are not helpful in that regard. While Republican leadership continues to sit on the sidelines, Democrats are in the room working hard. That is what the American people expect of us. They want to see us working to get something done in this time of extraordinary challenge. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4885-2 | null | 1,094 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, negotiations on the next round of COVID relief continued yesterday and will continue again today. Speaker Pelosi and I are making progress with the White House, but we remain far apart on a large number of issues. As I mentioned yesterday, the fundamental disagreement between our two parties is the scope and severity of the problem. This is the greatest economic crisis America has faced in 75 years and the greatest health crisis in 100. There must be a relief package commensurate with the size of this historic challenge. A skinny package--a package that doesn't solve so many of the problems that America faces--would hurt the American people, and we cannot have it. But our Republican friends are wedded ideologically to the idea that government shouldn't take forceful action; that we should leave the welfare of the American people to the whims of the private sector. It just doesn't work like that, especially in a time of national emergency. The private sector cannot do it. While we have started to generate some forward momentum, we need our partners in the White House to go much further on a number of issues, let alone the Republican Senate, where 20 or so Republicans, by the majority leader's admission, don't want to do anything. For example, the administration has finally come around to the view that we should extend the moratorium on evictions, but they continue to refuse to provide actual assistance to the renters themselves. What good does that do? We can prevent Americans from being kicked out of their apartments for another few months, but if they can't pay the rent, they will be right back at square one when the moratorium expires, with even more unpaid bills piled up. Extending the moratorium on evictions solves only one-half of the problem. Republicans continue to stonewall support for State, local, and Tribal governments, which have already shed more than a million public service jobs this year and will continue to lay off teachers, firefighters, and more if Congress does nothing. In the early days of the crisis, State and local governments fought this disease basically on their own. The Trump administration couldn't be bothered to coordinate a national response or supply them with the necessary resources. Now Leader McConnell and others on the Republican side say our States should just go bankrupt. They put zero into their proposal for State and local and would like Republican Senators to go home and tell their Governors, tell their mayors, and tell their county executives: We want zero for you. That is what our leader is for. Well, it is not acceptable. On unemployment insurance, a few Senate Republicans have belatedly accepted the view we should extend the enhanced benefit of $600 for an extended period of time, as Democrats have proposed and voted for in the House. Of course, many Senate Republicans--most Senate Republicans--still object to that, but at least a few have come around. At the moment, however, the White House is not there, and we are not going to strike a deal unless we extend the unemployment benefits, which have kept nearly 12 million Americans out of poverty. The same goes for healthcare, testing, and tracing. How is it that everyone in the White House can get tested, everyone in the NFL can get tested, but average Americans still cannot access tests easily or get results back fast enough? More than 7 months into the crisis, this administration does not have a plan or adequate capacity for testing and contact tracing. It is a shocking failure on the part of the Trump administration and the Republican Senators So Democrats are insisting that we provide enough resources to finally slow the spread and defeat this disease--the single most important thing to our recovery. The American people know that the Trump administration and their Republican adherents in the Senate are to blame for this huge failure in testing and tracing. They demand we act and act fully now, not with some half-baked, poorly funded plan that won't do the job, which is where the administration seems to be at right now. Democrats are insisting that every American should be able to vote this November safely and confidently in-person or by mail. COVID has affected how we will vote. Many more will vote by mail. There will be a need for polling places--maybe more of them--and a need to space people out as they vote. We are not going to stop fighting until State election systems and the post office, which is part of getting the mail there on time, get the resources they need. Elections are a wellspring of our democracy, and the only answer as to why neither the Republicans in the Senate nor the White House wants to do anything about it is they fear a free and fair election. That is inimicable to the core of this Republic. We are going to keep fighting. There have been alarming reports about recent failures at the post office, about residents in Michigan and Pennsylvania not getting their medicines or their paychecks for 3 weeks or more. The Postal Service is vital--and not just for elections but every single day. The new Postmaster, Mr. DeJoy, a big donor to President Trump--which many believe is his main qualification for being chosen--has enacted new guidelines in the post office that experts say will cause severe delays in mail delivery. Then he refused for weeks to even hold a phone call with Democrats, including myself, about this issue. I called three times. Mr. DeJoy evidently didn't have the time to call back when I was so concerned about mail delivery in New York and the rest of the country. So we have insisted to Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Meadows on meeting with Mr. DeJoy, which will take place later today. We need to resolve the problems at the post office--this lack of funding and the new regulations that get in the way of the timely delivery of the mail. We must resolve those issues in a way that allows mail to be delivered on time for the election and for the necessities that people need. Each and every one of these issues is critical, and there are many more. We need answers and movement on all of them, not just on one or two, but some of our Republican friends seem content to pass a bill--any bill--so they can check the box and go home. We cannot do that. We cannot agree to an inadequate bill and then go home while the virus continues to spread, the economy continues to deteriorate, and the country gets worse. So we are going to keep slogging through, step by step, inch by inch, until we achieve the caliber, the extent, the depth and breadth of the legislation that the American people need, deserve, and want. In stark contrast, the Republican leader has decided that he would rather lob partisan pot shots from the Senate floor each morning rather than join in productive negotiations. It is difficult to listen to the Republican leader spin such a malicious fiction about why Congress has yet to pass another round of relief when he can't even sit in the room with us and negotiate, when he can't even create a modicum of unity in his disturbingly divided caucus. For 3 months, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans put the Senate on pause when it came to the coronavirus. As COVID threats spread throughout the South and West, as States hit daily records for new cases and hospitalizations, as 50 million Americans filed for unemployment, the Senate Republican majority merely hummed along as if it were living in a different universe. Leader McConnell scheduled confirmation votes on rightwing judges. The chairman of Judiciary and Homeland Security held hearings on the President's wild conspiracy theories about the 2016 election and conducted desperate fishing expeditions, hoping to dig up dirt on the family of the President's political rivals. When the Republican majority did put legislation on the floor, it wasn't even remotely related to COVID. All through that time, Democrats came to the floor to practically beg ourcolleagues to consider COVID relief legislation. We asked consent to pass urgent relief no fewer than 15 times, and every single time, Republicans blocked our requests. Once Senate Republicans finally decided to write a bill, it was the legislative equivalent of a dumpster fire. Republicans bickered among themselves for over a week and a half before finally giving up. They didn't even release a coherent bill; just a series of nibbling proposals, rife with corporate giveaways and K Street carve-outs. Republicans proposed a tax break for three-martini lunches but no food assistance for hungry kids; $2 billion to build an FBI building to boost the value of the Trump hotel but not a dime to help Americans afford their rent Then, to top it all off, almost as soon as the Republican plan on COVID was released, it became clear that even Senate Republicans didn't support it. President Trump called it ``semi-irrelevant.'' ``Semi-irrelevant'' is what President Trump called the Republican proposals. Leader McConnell basically gave up and left Democrats and the White House to negotiate the next bill. So it strains reason for Leader McConnell to criticize those of us who are actually engaged in negotiations while he is intentionally staying out of it. His ``Alice in Wonderland'' rhetoric--flipping everything on its head and accusing the other side of the sins that Leader McConnell, in fact, is committing--is extremely counterproductive. Since Senate Republicans clearly cannot reach a consensus, any agreement is going to require a lot of Democratic votes. Suffice it to say, the Republican leader's rhetoric and positions are not helpful in that regard. While Republican leadership continues to sit on the sidelines, Democrats are in the room working hard. That is what the American people expect of us. They want to see us working to get something done in this time of extraordinary challenge. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4885-2 | null | 1,095 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me also address for a moment this issue of reopening of schools. There is a debate raging across the country right now about what this autumn will look like for our Nation's schools, the schoolchildren, teachers, and school staff. You have heard the President, who has literally threatened those who don't reopen their schools that they may lose Federal funding if they don't reopen schools. What is that funding spent for? Special education, school lunches, help for kids in poor schools. The message has been reiterated by the loyal Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos. She, too, has joined in the threats of schools that don't reopen. Now the Republicans in the Senate have taken that threat and turned it into legislation with their proposal in the next relief package. Let me be really clear. There is a concern about empty classrooms. Those who study childhood behavior worry that lack of socialization takes its toll on childhood development. Teachers are often sentinels for evidence of child abuse, which now may be going unreported. Remote learning works well for some but not for others. But that is not the concern of this President. He wants schools back so he that can claim some kind of false victory over the coronavirus. Last week, I led 24 of my colleagues in writing to the majority leader and the Democratic leader opposing putting children and teachers in any danger by conditioning funding of schools reopening in person. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Little Village Academy in Chicago with the Chicago Public Schools chief, Janice Jackson. Some wonderful people are there each day passing out lunches to the kids in the neighborhood who come around the school. They haven't reopened for classes. They hope they will, but that decision is still to be made. I can tell you that in Chicago and around my home State of Illinois, school boards, administrators, teachers, parents, and others are facing these decisions honestly. They have to provide a safe and effective learning environment for students and for teachers, whether that be in person, in school, or at home. Unlike President Trump, who is nicely insulated in the bubble of the White House with the multiple daily COVID-19 tests for everyone who just might come in contact with him, these education professionals in my home State of Illinois have to answer directly to the families in their communities. It is a decision that local officials are best suited to make without intimidation or threats from Washington, DC. But Washington does have a role to play. The best thing we can do to help local school districts through this difficult fall and beyond is to provide the Federal assistance and support they need to ensure the path they choose is one that keeps students and staff safe while allowing the learning and development to continue effectively. It is why, as we negotiate a fourth coronavirus response package, I will be pushing for the inclusion of the Coronavirus Childcare and Education Relief Act, being led in the Senate by Senator Patty Murray of Washington. In addition to supporting childcare, early education, and higher education, the bill provides $175 billion to elementary and secondary schools to help meet technology, cleaning, staffing, and other needs of schools. It provides funds to school districts based on their share of low-income children. In that way, it is similar to the CARES Act, which brought more than $200 million to the Chicago Public Schools and a total of $512 million across our State of Illinois. Compare that $175 billion to the $70 billion being offered on the Republican side--another classic example. We believe this is a serious national issue, when it comes to education. The Republicans do not. The amount of money that they are proposing is a fraction of what we offer, and much of it is conditioned on the schools actually reopening in person, regardless of what is the safest thing for the schools, the teachers, and the students in any given area. Congress shouldn't put State and local officials in the position of choosing between desperately needed Federal assistance and the safety of students and the school personnel. Congress should not incentivize schools to reopen in person prematurely or penalize those where the public health situation makes it dangerous. The argument from the administration seems to go: ``Well, if schools don't reopen, they either don't deserve or don't need any help.'' That is just not the case. Even schools that are not able to reopen in person need assistance ensuring their students, especially those from low-income families, have the ability to participate in remote learning. They need help keeping staff on payroll, preparing the buildings so they can return in person in the future, and addressing any number of difficulties this pandemic has created. For school buses, if there is going to be social distancing of the kids on the buses, will there be a need for additional buses and busdrivers? In addition to funding, the Federal Government should also ensure that schools have science-based guidance to support safely opening, free from political influence and Presidential quackery. They also need the flexibility to continue serving critical meals to our students, regardless of what the school year looks like this fall. Chicago Public Schools have done an incredible job providing 18 million meals since March. We need to ensure the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the range of alternative options needed to make sure that no kid in America goes hungry. Schools in Chicago and around our State don't need any more tweets or self-congratulatory briefings, Mr. President. They need Federal resources and guidance based on the best science our government has to offer. That is why I am fighting for this relief package to be at a level to meet the challenge we face across America | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4887 | null | 1,096 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me also address for a moment this issue of reopening of schools. There is a debate raging across the country right now about what this autumn will look like for our Nation's schools, the schoolchildren, teachers, and school staff. You have heard the President, who has literally threatened those who don't reopen their schools that they may lose Federal funding if they don't reopen schools. What is that funding spent for? Special education, school lunches, help for kids in poor schools. The message has been reiterated by the loyal Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos. She, too, has joined in the threats of schools that don't reopen. Now the Republicans in the Senate have taken that threat and turned it into legislation with their proposal in the next relief package. Let me be really clear. There is a concern about empty classrooms. Those who study childhood behavior worry that lack of socialization takes its toll on childhood development. Teachers are often sentinels for evidence of child abuse, which now may be going unreported. Remote learning works well for some but not for others. But that is not the concern of this President. He wants schools back so he that can claim some kind of false victory over the coronavirus. Last week, I led 24 of my colleagues in writing to the majority leader and the Democratic leader opposing putting children and teachers in any danger by conditioning funding of schools reopening in person. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Little Village Academy in Chicago with the Chicago Public Schools chief, Janice Jackson. Some wonderful people are there each day passing out lunches to the kids in the neighborhood who come around the school. They haven't reopened for classes. They hope they will, but that decision is still to be made. I can tell you that in Chicago and around my home State of Illinois, school boards, administrators, teachers, parents, and others are facing these decisions honestly. They have to provide a safe and effective learning environment for students and for teachers, whether that be in person, in school, or at home. Unlike President Trump, who is nicely insulated in the bubble of the White House with the multiple daily COVID-19 tests for everyone who just might come in contact with him, these education professionals in my home State of Illinois have to answer directly to the families in their communities. It is a decision that local officials are best suited to make without intimidation or threats from Washington, DC. But Washington does have a role to play. The best thing we can do to help local school districts through this difficult fall and beyond is to provide the Federal assistance and support they need to ensure the path they choose is one that keeps students and staff safe while allowing the learning and development to continue effectively. It is why, as we negotiate a fourth coronavirus response package, I will be pushing for the inclusion of the Coronavirus Childcare and Education Relief Act, being led in the Senate by Senator Patty Murray of Washington. In addition to supporting childcare, early education, and higher education, the bill provides $175 billion to elementary and secondary schools to help meet technology, cleaning, staffing, and other needs of schools. It provides funds to school districts based on their share of low-income children. In that way, it is similar to the CARES Act, which brought more than $200 million to the Chicago Public Schools and a total of $512 million across our State of Illinois. Compare that $175 billion to the $70 billion being offered on the Republican side--another classic example. We believe this is a serious national issue, when it comes to education. The Republicans do not. The amount of money that they are proposing is a fraction of what we offer, and much of it is conditioned on the schools actually reopening in person, regardless of what is the safest thing for the schools, the teachers, and the students in any given area. Congress shouldn't put State and local officials in the position of choosing between desperately needed Federal assistance and the safety of students and the school personnel. Congress should not incentivize schools to reopen in person prematurely or penalize those where the public health situation makes it dangerous. The argument from the administration seems to go: ``Well, if schools don't reopen, they either don't deserve or don't need any help.'' That is just not the case. Even schools that are not able to reopen in person need assistance ensuring their students, especially those from low-income families, have the ability to participate in remote learning. They need help keeping staff on payroll, preparing the buildings so they can return in person in the future, and addressing any number of difficulties this pandemic has created. For school buses, if there is going to be social distancing of the kids on the buses, will there be a need for additional buses and busdrivers? In addition to funding, the Federal Government should also ensure that schools have science-based guidance to support safely opening, free from political influence and Presidential quackery. They also need the flexibility to continue serving critical meals to our students, regardless of what the school year looks like this fall. Chicago Public Schools have done an incredible job providing 18 million meals since March. We need to ensure the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the range of alternative options needed to make sure that no kid in America goes hungry. Schools in Chicago and around our State don't need any more tweets or self-congratulatory briefings, Mr. President. They need Federal resources and guidance based on the best science our government has to offer. That is why I am fighting for this relief package to be at a level to meet the challenge we face across America | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4887 | null | 1,097 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me also address for a moment this issue of reopening of schools. There is a debate raging across the country right now about what this autumn will look like for our Nation's schools, the schoolchildren, teachers, and school staff. You have heard the President, who has literally threatened those who don't reopen their schools that they may lose Federal funding if they don't reopen schools. What is that funding spent for? Special education, school lunches, help for kids in poor schools. The message has been reiterated by the loyal Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos. She, too, has joined in the threats of schools that don't reopen. Now the Republicans in the Senate have taken that threat and turned it into legislation with their proposal in the next relief package. Let me be really clear. There is a concern about empty classrooms. Those who study childhood behavior worry that lack of socialization takes its toll on childhood development. Teachers are often sentinels for evidence of child abuse, which now may be going unreported. Remote learning works well for some but not for others. But that is not the concern of this President. He wants schools back so he that can claim some kind of false victory over the coronavirus. Last week, I led 24 of my colleagues in writing to the majority leader and the Democratic leader opposing putting children and teachers in any danger by conditioning funding of schools reopening in person. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Little Village Academy in Chicago with the Chicago Public Schools chief, Janice Jackson. Some wonderful people are there each day passing out lunches to the kids in the neighborhood who come around the school. They haven't reopened for classes. They hope they will, but that decision is still to be made. I can tell you that in Chicago and around my home State of Illinois, school boards, administrators, teachers, parents, and others are facing these decisions honestly. They have to provide a safe and effective learning environment for students and for teachers, whether that be in person, in school, or at home. Unlike President Trump, who is nicely insulated in the bubble of the White House with the multiple daily COVID-19 tests for everyone who just might come in contact with him, these education professionals in my home State of Illinois have to answer directly to the families in their communities. It is a decision that local officials are best suited to make without intimidation or threats from Washington, DC. But Washington does have a role to play. The best thing we can do to help local school districts through this difficult fall and beyond is to provide the Federal assistance and support they need to ensure the path they choose is one that keeps students and staff safe while allowing the learning and development to continue effectively. It is why, as we negotiate a fourth coronavirus response package, I will be pushing for the inclusion of the Coronavirus Childcare and Education Relief Act, being led in the Senate by Senator Patty Murray of Washington. In addition to supporting childcare, early education, and higher education, the bill provides $175 billion to elementary and secondary schools to help meet technology, cleaning, staffing, and other needs of schools. It provides funds to school districts based on their share of low-income children. In that way, it is similar to the CARES Act, which brought more than $200 million to the Chicago Public Schools and a total of $512 million across our State of Illinois. Compare that $175 billion to the $70 billion being offered on the Republican side--another classic example. We believe this is a serious national issue, when it comes to education. The Republicans do not. The amount of money that they are proposing is a fraction of what we offer, and much of it is conditioned on the schools actually reopening in person, regardless of what is the safest thing for the schools, the teachers, and the students in any given area. Congress shouldn't put State and local officials in the position of choosing between desperately needed Federal assistance and the safety of students and the school personnel. Congress should not incentivize schools to reopen in person prematurely or penalize those where the public health situation makes it dangerous. The argument from the administration seems to go: ``Well, if schools don't reopen, they either don't deserve or don't need any help.'' That is just not the case. Even schools that are not able to reopen in person need assistance ensuring their students, especially those from low-income families, have the ability to participate in remote learning. They need help keeping staff on payroll, preparing the buildings so they can return in person in the future, and addressing any number of difficulties this pandemic has created. For school buses, if there is going to be social distancing of the kids on the buses, will there be a need for additional buses and busdrivers? In addition to funding, the Federal Government should also ensure that schools have science-based guidance to support safely opening, free from political influence and Presidential quackery. They also need the flexibility to continue serving critical meals to our students, regardless of what the school year looks like this fall. Chicago Public Schools have done an incredible job providing 18 million meals since March. We need to ensure the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the range of alternative options needed to make sure that no kid in America goes hungry. Schools in Chicago and around our State don't need any more tweets or self-congratulatory briefings, Mr. President. They need Federal resources and guidance based on the best science our government has to offer. That is why I am fighting for this relief package to be at a level to meet the challenge we face across America | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4887 | null | 1,098 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week Senate Republicans did introduce a new coronavirus relief bill called the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools Act. This bill is a $1 trillion piece of legislation focused on getting Americans back to work, getting kids and college students back to school, and providing healthcare resources to help defeat the virus. As the title says--the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools Act--it does have liability protections in there. I just listened to the Senator from Illinois attack the idea of including those types of protections in the legislation, but I think it is really important to point out that those type of protections are critical if we are going to get the economy reopened again. Businesses that are doing all the right things--following the CDC guidelines, adhering to all the laws, all the guidelines and restrictions that are out there--shouldn't have to worry about lawyering up and spending thousands and, in some cases, millions of dollars to try and defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits, which are being filed as we speak by the thousands. The implication given by the Senator from Illinois that somehow this is all about big corporations or big businesses is just not consistent with the facts on the ground. In fact, I had a conversation 2 days ago with the school administrators in my State of South Dakota, all of whom are very interested in getting their schools opened up and getting kids back in school, which, again, is one of the priorities of our legislation and should be, I think, one of the priorities of the country as we head into the fall. One of their big issues was ensuring that they had protections against liability--a liability shield, if you will, not against gross negligence, not against intentional misconduct--those types of things would not be covered--but protections if, in fact, they are doing all the right things, consistent with the guidelines, following the rules that have been put in place, that they should have at least some protections. That is going to be true not just of schools and small businesses, but it is also going to be true of healthcare providers. We have people on the frontlines who are sacrificing every day to try and get people better, to heal those who have contracted the virus, and also protect those who are on the frontlines from getting it. They, too, are going to need those very types of protections that are called for in our legislation. So this is not something that was put in there on a whim just because we knew that the Democrats wouldn't like it. It was put in there because of feedback we received from States, local governments, school districts, healthcare providers, hospitals, nursing homes, and, yes, some small businesses, all of whom are going to be essential if we are going to get the economy up and going again and get people back to work, kids back to school, and Americans back on their feet. So it is an essential part of the legislation, one which, so far, the Democrats have demonstrated no interest in including and, frankly, no interest in even having a conversation about, which is unfortunate because it is a critical element, feature, of any bill that we should be working on right now to provide coronavirus relief. When we introduced this bill, we knew this version wouldn't be the final draft. I think everybody conceded that. We knew we would need to negotiate with our Democratic colleagues just like we did with the CARES Act, which was our largest coronavirus relief bill, back in March. Back in March, the model that was used was having committee chairmen and ranking members get together in compromise and work out differences and end up with a strong, bipartisan bill. Was it a perfect bill? Well, no, of course not. No bill is. Did everyone get everything that he or she wanted? No, but it was a strong, bipartisan bill that was praised by Democrats and Republicans alike--in fact, reflected by the unanimous vote. I would like to say that we are engaging in those same types of negotiations right now, but unfortunately I can't say that. I can't say, in fact, what is happening right now is even negotiations. Negotiations involve both sides being willing to give something up to compromise and to try and move toward a solution. While Republicans are willing to make compromises to ensure that we can deliver another coronavirus relief bill to the American people, Democrats apparently aren't willing to make any. Back in May, House Democrats proposed and passed a massive $3.4 trillion piece of legislation that they called a coronavirus relief bill. Subsequently, it has been endorsed by Senate Democrats who have gone so far as to offer up unanimous consent requests here on the Senate floor to adopt the House-passed bill. In reality, that House-passed bill, $3.4 trillion bill, was a lengthy liberal wish list which even Members of the Democrats' own party dismissed as dead on arrival. In fact, Democrats had some work to do to persuade Members of their own caucus in the House to vote for the bill. As POLITICO put it at the time: ``As of late Thursday evening, the House Democratic leadership was engaged in what a few senior aides and lawmakers described as the most difficult arm-twisting of the entire Congress: convincing their rank and file to vote for a $3 trillion stimulus bill that will never become law.'' That is from POLITICO. The House bill includes various ``coronavirus priorities'' like funding for diversity and inclusion studies in the marijuana industry, tax cuts for blue-State millionaires, federalizing elections. Those are just a few of the items that were included in the House-passed bill that it is very hard to argue have anything to do with defeating the coronavirus. In fact, the House bill mentions the word ``cannabis'' more often than it mentions the word ``job,'' which tells you all you need to know about the seriousness of that proposal. Despite all that, Democratic leaders have taken the House bill as their starting and, yes, their ending point for negotiations. They are insisting that Republicans sign off on pretty much everything in their bill, from the tax cuts for wealthy Americans to major changes in election law. Andthey are not budging on the pricetag either. As I said, Republicans have proposed a $1 trillion piece of legislation, and I can tell you--from being a Member of the Republican conference and the discussions that we have--what a stretch it is for a lot of Republicans, who already have voted for multiple coronavirus relief bills to the pricetag of about $3 trillion so far, to do another trillion dollars, knowing that every one of those dollars is a borrowed dollar, every one of those dollars is going on a Federal debt which is already upward of $25 billion and will ultimately have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren. Well, that said, the trillion-dollar legislation that was put forward by Republicans is nowhere close to the pricetag for the Democrats' bill, which is $3.4 trillion, as I said. Now, I think even an elementary school student would realize that compromise lies somewhere between those two numbers, more than, perhaps, the Republicans' bill and less than the Democrats' bill, but apparently that is not something Democrats are willing to entertain. A senior correspondent for CNN talked to Speaker Pelosi yesterday, who claimed she wanted to reach agreement on a bill this week. The correspondent asked the Speaker what pricetag she was willing to agree to. Her answer: $3.4 trillion. In other words, after more than a week of negotiations, the Speaker of the House hasn't budged from her original position. She hasn't budged, nor have the Senate Democrats, who every time something has come up on our side to try and address this crisis have answered with: Well, let's just pass the Heroes Act of the House, the $3.4 trillion boondoggle. Well, that is not a compromise. That is not a negotiation. And if we emerge from this process without a coronavirus relief bill, the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the Democratic leadership. Let's suppose, for a moment, that Republican negotiators agreed to every single thing that Democrats are insisting on: tax cuts for millionaires, diversity studies for the marijuana industry, a trillion-dollar pot of money for States, which, I might add, haven't even come close to spending the coronavirus money the government has already given them. Let's suppose Republican negotiators agreed to everything. What would happen then? Well, the bill would never pass the Senate. In the Senate, you need 60 votes to pass a bill, and there simply aren't 60 votes in the Senate for the Democrats' liberal fantasies. In fact, it would be lovely if, as Democrats seem to think, the government drew its funding from a magical pot of gold that never runs out, but it doesn't. Every dollar of the coronavirus relief that we already provided has been borrowed money, which continues to drive up our national debt. Now, arguably, it was money that needed to be borrowed, but there has to be a limit. The higher we drive our national debt, the greater the danger to the health of our economy. Democrats may be fine with jeopardizing our economic health to pay for diversity studies in the marijuana industry, but I can tell you the Republicans are not. Republicans know we are going to have to borrow some additional money to meet the demands of the coronavirus crisis--and we have offered legislation to do just that--but we are not going to further endanger our already battered economy by signing off on every unnecessary spending item on the Democrats' liberal fantasy list. Now, are Republicans going to have to agree to some of the things that we are not crazy about? Of course we are. But Democrats are going to have to accept that they can't dictate every word of the bill. The bill which passed the House, I might add, was 1,800 pages long. The bill that we have proposed in the Senate is 165 pages. The ball is in the Democrats' court. Republicans want to pass a coronavirus relief bill, and we are ready to negotiate. The Democrats are going to have to decide they want to come to the table. ``Our way or the highway'' is not a negotiating position, and if Democrats continue to insist on getting everything that they want, they are going to be responsible for Congress's failure to deliver additional relief. I hope--I really hope the Democratic leadership will remember what it means to negotiate and that it will work with Republicans to arrive at a compromise bill that can make it through both Houses of Congress and actually become law. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4888-2 | null | 1,099 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.