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 | tax cut | null | racist | 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 | 1,100 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | 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 | 1,101 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | 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 | 1,102 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, ``Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows''--so wrote novelist George Orwell. In the late 1980s, I traveled to the former Soviet Union as part of a youth soccer program. Now, decades have passed since that trip, of course, but the memories to me are still vivid. The shelves were barren. Citizens drank from communal water fountains. The items most in demand and hardest to find were American items: blue jeans--Levi Strauss--and bubble gum. Of course, those weren't the only things common in Indiana that were contraband behind the Iron Curtain. For decades, news, literature, art, or entertainment that was not broadcast or approved by the state was scarce and available only by bootleg. The monuments towering over Russia were built to honor those who controlled it, the same men who regularly erased parts of Russia's history to suit their own political purposes, not to serve others. This was a society where ideas and dialogue existed only underground, where watching American movies was a jailable offense, where free thinkers weren't found in newspapers or airwaves but locked away in labor camps, where information protected the State instead of empowering the individuals, where history was constantly purged and revised. By the time I visited, though, Soviet leadership, in self-preservation mode, had gradually allowed citizens access to information and media as new technologies emerged. It was only a ray of sunlight through a very small crack, but through it, people all across the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc could finally see and hear what had long been hidden from them: jazz, rock `n' roll, Star Wars, Chuck Norris, Dr. Zhivago, and Robinson Crusoe. History once erased was restored. The truth of Stalin's murders was revealed. Inevitably, the fatal conceit of a centrally planned Communist economy was exposed, and large numbers of Russians realized just how poorly their quality of life compared to the free, Western alternative. They were even permitted rights to express dissatisfaction with their circumstances. A totalitarian regime's greatest ally is darkness and silence. Keeping a people in the dark is the surest way to guarantee they never demand their God-given rights. But just a trickle of information, just a hint of truth, a small offering of differing perspectives, and a touch of freedom of expression helped lead to the Soviet Union's demise--``the freedom to say that two plus two make four.'' Free people become and stay free through open dialogue because of the free exchange of information and ideas--even ones we disagree with; because of patience with perspectives that are not our own; because we study our history, celebrate its highs, and learn from its lows. That is why--that is why--it was painful to read recently that over 60 percent of Americans are now scared to admit their beliefs or air their opinions for fear of offending others and the consequences that will come with it. It is painful to learn but easy to understand. This is the logical reaction when Americans are regularly canceled, as we say today, for things said or written decades ago, with no chance of grace or allowance for growth. It is not just people who are being canceled. It is words. It is music. Classrooms and libraries are banning ``Huckleberry Finn'' and ``To Kill A Mockingbird'' rather than encouraging students to examine or understand their authors' words and messages. ``Hamilton'' is falling from grace now for the ``sin'' of acknowledging America was created in 1776. Whole parts of our American story are being wiped away. Communities have a right to lawfully determine who and what adorns theirsquares and streets, but that is a world away from toppling statues of George Washington and U.S. Grant in the same manner those of Lenin and Stalin were once removed at the end of the Cold War. Our entertainment industry is getting in on the act too. American movies once inspired freedom seekers. Today, they are self-censored to appease another totalitarian regime in Beijing. America is a good nation. Those who call it home are decent and kind. We are not perfect, but our imperfections are not irredeemable. The year 2020 has made it clear, though, that much work remains in the task of building a more perfect union. That effort is ongoing. Every generation since our founding has worked toward it. Every generation has made hard-earned progress, and our own work to create a more just future will be no less difficult--certainly more so than knocking down bronze and marble men or waging war on books or on each other across social media. Every time our Nation has moved closer to better realizing the promise at the heart of our Declaration of Independence ``that all men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,'' it has been because the Founders dared to dream that was possible and left us the means to do so: the freedom to raise our voices and state our opinions, to disagree and respectfully debate; the gift of free inquiry; the right to challenge our country on toward what Martin Luther King, Jr., memorably called its noble dream through words, music, art, or expression--all free from censorship and recrimination. These liberties--unparalleled in human history--were won, preserved, and handed down to us by many of those whose memorials are falling. Out of gratitude, we must remember the men and women who came before us. We must see their faults but not lose sight of their virtues and aspire to the high ideals they set for us, even if they often fell short of realizing them. What will we have without these freedoms, without memory and understanding of our past? Desolate public spaces, empty bookshelves, silenced citizens with nothing to strive for other than self-preservation. But with these freedoms and inspired by our history, valuable debate and dialogue will flourish; daring ideas will be welcome; and great ideas will live. And the work we are in--the work of building a more perfect union and a freer and fairer nation--will be possible. Let this be the path we choose. It would be natural to close with a quote by one of our several generations of Founding Fathers: Washington, Lincoln, King. But today I feel it is more appropriate to remember another nation's founder and a good American friend--a man who lived behind the Iron Curtain and knew well the dangers of censorship and the power of free expression. As a playwright and a musician, he suffered under censorship. As a public leader, he helped his nation gain the power of free expression. It was exactly 30 years ago today that Vaclav Havel, then the President of Czechoslovakia, spoke in this building. ``You have thousands of problems of all kinds, as other countries do,'' he observed of America. ``But you have one great advantage,'' he reminded us. ``You have been approaching democracy . . . for more than 200 years, and your journey toward that horizon has never been disrupted by a totalitarian system.'' Fellow Americans, our journey continues on toward that horizon, and only we have the power to disrupt it. In this Nation, two plus two must always equal four. We can take a positive step forward in one respect. Here is how. Beginning today, I will be regularly recognizing notable pieces of Indiana's history. It may be through a floor speech or a resolution or a social media posting. The purpose will be to celebrate and better understand my State's part of America's story and to remember the Hoosiers who--through and because of freedom of action, speech, and expression--wrote that story. They will not be erased. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. YOUNG | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4889 | null | 1,103 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we have been talking here in the Senate for months now about what needs to be done to respond to COVID-19. Right now, we are debating behind the scenes a fifth bill dealing with COVID-19. We have already passed four through the House and the Senate that the President has signed. Many Americans know the effects of those previous bills. They have received deposits from the Treasury of $1,200, and they have received assistance from the Paycheck Protection Program. Their schools have received assistance. Their hospitals have received assistance. Their States have received assistance. Their local jurisdictions have received assistance. There has been wide support in multiple areas--for housing and for health, for testing and for vaccines. All of those things have happened in the previous four bills. Yet, when we passed the last set of bills, there was a lot of thought about what would happen next. How would the virus spread? How long would this last? Would Americans continue to just stay sequestered in their homes, away from everyone else? Now, after months of dealing with this COVID-19, not only in the United States but globally, we know a lot more about not only how we are going to respond and treat the disease but also about what we are dealing with, for COVID-19 doesn't affect everyone in the same way health-wise or economically. There are some people who get COVID-19, and they, literally, never know it--they experience no symptoms at all--while others end up in a hospital, in the ICU, or on ventilators. There are even fatalities. Economically, we are at the same spot with COVID-19. Some businesses in America and some individuals in America are, literally, making more money now than they ever have before. They are in one of those businesses that is in high need--maybe home improvement. Since lots of folks are staying at home, they are doing home improvements. The price of lumber has skyrocketed and the price for replacement windows. All kinds of people are installing pools at their homes. They aren't going on vacation this year. So they are doing things to fix up their homes. Construction and home improvement have skyrocketed. Retail sales and craft businesses and things to do at home have skyrocketed. A lot of other businesses that we have seen have actually increased dramatically, not just grocery stores and department stores and such, but online retailers. They are doing really good business. In my State, the incomes from many small towns to their communities are higher now than they ever were in the history of their cities because people aren't driving to other towns to shop. They are staying at home and are shopping locally or online. So that tax revenue is going back to the cities. Literally, they are doing better now than they ever have done. For other communities and other businesses, there have been horrible effects during this time period, if you are a hotel or a convention center or a restaurant that surrounds a convention center. If the businesses deal with travel, transportation, or vacations, all of those are struggling horribly during this time period, and there are multiple others. Here is the challenge that we have: Should our response now be the same as it was in March--to just pretend that this has struck everyone exactly the same--or should we pay attention to the realities economically around the country? I think we should be more strategic and understand that what we are spending is other people's money. It is not just printed monopoly money that we can just throw out of here. It is debt on our future or it is, literally, taking money from the person next door or from your house. So what do we need to do in a bill, and what are the needs at this point? Some of them are very obvious. For the next bill that is coming, we need to focus in on vaccines, tests, and therapeutics. What are we going to do with telehealth? How are we going to be able to help? This is, first and foremost, a health crisis, and it is amazing to me thenumber of topics that are being discussed for the next bill that have nothing to do with COVID-19--nothing to do with it. My friends on the other side of the aisle came forward with the Heroes Act--a great name. It is a $3 trillion bill, and a full $1 trillion of it has nothing to do with COVID-19. Unrelated completely is $1 trillion of it because it is a big bill, and we want to get other things in. We want to just throw it in there. Why don't we start with this as a health crisis, and let's focus in on the health issues there--vaccines, testing, therapeutics, telehealth. What can we do for rural hospitals? What needs to happen at urban and suburban hospitals? Those are basic questions that should be there. One of the most successful programs that we put forward in the CARES Act was the Paycheck Protection Program. Now that it has had its headlines, as some folks have said, there are people who have abused it. Well, welcome to government. Every single program that comes out of government will be abused by someone at some time. We have seen that in the unemployment system. Unemployment insurance has gone out, and it has been widely abused. Well, so have some portions of the Paycheck Protection Program, but we have all seen the long lines at unemployment offices around the country. The reason this was put in place--the Paycheck Protection Program--was to do whatever we could to help shorten those lines at unemployment offices, for people to not have to leave and go on unemployment but to stay connected to their small business or not-for-profit. That has worked. In my State, 65,000 businesses and nonprofits have taken advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program--about $5.5 billion of assistance just in my State. But there are some things that need to be dealt with. The forgiveness system on it is just coming out--much delayed, much to our frustration, but there are some straightforward things that can be done. If you are an entity with a loan that is $150,000 or less, there should be a very straightforward process of testimonial--a single page to fill out to complete this. We want to see this. We want to see businesses with the highest need--let's say businesses with a 35-, 40-percent, 50-percent--some of them, 70-, 75-percent loss in revenue from the previous year should have an eligibility to get through this. Now, some businesses took the Paycheck Protection Program, and they had a 5-percent loss over last year. To me, that is fine because at the beginning of this, no one knew who was going to survive. Many of those business owners were in the process of saying: I am going to have to lay everyone off or I can keep them on the Paycheck Protection Program. They kept them on the Paycheck Protection Program and that helped those families have a stable time, where they knew where their check was coming from. It helped those businesses reopen, and many of them are reopening now. It kept them off the unemployment assistance. Now, if we do a second round of paycheck protection, it really needs to be focused in on those businesses that are significantly off on revenue that will not survive without some additional help. We need to be attentive to how we actually handle this and be more strategic. We are not in the same situation that we were in March. We need to also look at businesses that were funded with private equity. It makes no sense to me that if a business started and got their loan from a bank, they can get a Paycheck Protection Program, but if they got their capital from private equity, they are not eligible for this. The employees that work there don't know where the capital came from to start the business; they just know they work there. But for some reason, there is a continual pushback to say: Well, if they were funded with private equity rather than a bank, then they are evil. No, they are startup companies doing technology, innovation, healthcare. Those are the kinds of companies that are out there that are being funded with private equity, but yet we have told their employees: You can just go to unemployment, and, literally, the business next door to them: No, you get paycheck protection. That makes no sense. We should fix that. We should put into this next bill some help for schools that are reopening. Now, not every school is reopening. They are not going to need the same level of help. Some schools are not reopening or they are choosing not to. I understand that. We gave additional funds--$30 billion of funds--across the country from the previous CARES Act to help schools transition to online learning, to help them get through the process of finding cleaning supplies, do additional training. That was $30 billion that was sent out to do that. Additional dollars should be helping those schools that are reopening that will have additional expenses. They are going to have to run additional bus routes to make sure they keep kids separate. They are going to have to do A and B schedules to open up their classrooms. There are going to be greater expenses for them, so we should help those schools that are reopening through the process. That is common sense in this. There has been a big request for an additional assistance check for those that need additional assistance. There are some families who are struggling to make their payments and are going to be evicted. The $1,200 that was sent out earlier this year went out to help stop that early in the year, and some families are still unemployed and still struggling through this. What are we going to do to help them? There are some strategic ways to get out some additional assistance, but we should target it to those families of greatest need, and that should be the same with their unemployment assistance. Unemployment assistance passed in March. There was an additional $600 per week, per person that was sent out on unemployment assistance in addition to the normal State unemployment assistance. For many individuals in my State, that meant you made more on unemployment than you did on employment. That is a problem long term. Now, this program was set up to be short term; that it would be assistance through the end of July, which has now passed. It was a week ago. But individuals applying for unemployment assistance this week are still getting unemployment assistance in my State, exactly as they were in February of this year, exactly as they were in November of last year, exactly as they were in August of last year. Unemployment assistance is still happening in my State, just like it is happening in every other State. But the debate is, do we want to go above and beyond unemployment assistance that literally takes people to the spot where they make more staying at home than they do at work? Now, there are some folks who are saying: Well, that doesn't actually deincentivize work. Really? Tell that to the folks whom I have talked to who work in manufacturing, who are there at the job working every day, and the person who usually works a pod away from them is at home because they have talked to them, and they are saying: I will come back once my unemployment goes away. So this person is busting their tail working, making less than the person who is staying at home, and the person staying at home is telling their friend: I will come back when the benefits run out. That is not right for either one of those folks. That tells that person working: You are a sucker for not just staying home and getting somebody else's money. We should not incentivize for not working. We should help people get through a very difficult time, and that is what this is, but not discourage engagement in work. That is not fair to the guy or the lady who is still working. That is not fair to the employer that has opened up and saying: I have got jobs available but no one will apply. And that is not right for that family who is staying home, taking money from their neighbors, when they know they could come back and work. Now, the law says that if you are offered a job and you are on unemployment, you have to take it. But we know of way too many cases already where individuals are not taking the job they are offered, and the employer knows it is one of their employees who is a good employee, and they wantthem to come back, so they hate to turn them in. So it puts everyone in a quandary--the employer and the employee because the employee is breaking the law by staying home, teaching their family to do the wrong thing, because it gets them more money. We shouldn't put them in that spot, and we shouldn't encourage people to be in that spot. In this bill, we should deal with unemployment, but we should make sure we are helping people through this season, not incentivizing them to break the law. We should deal with nursing care and senior living. We should deal with hospital care in this bill. Those are the areas that have been the hardest hit in all of America. The largest number of fatalities that we have had and the greatest amount of expense are in that area. We should do something to come alongside them. We should do something in this bill about liability protections. I have letters and phone calls from universities in my State and from businesses in my State saying they are terrified to reengage for fear of what is going to happen with lawsuits coming in the days ahead that they can't stop. They want to be able to serve their students at school, they want to be able to serve their customers in their business and the families who depend on that, but they are afraid of an entrepreneurial lawyer that will file lawsuits and will push them to settle or push them into bankruptcy at a very difficult time for them, only because this body will not step up and do basic liability protections. Now, if there is gross negligence, we should never protect that company. But if they are doing the best that they can, why wouldn't we have basic liability protections for our universities, our schools, and our places of business? We need to have in this bill some help for the postal system. There is a lot of debate about what that should be. Is it total reform of the postal system? No, that is not what this is about. But just like we helped the State Department in the CARES Act, we should help USPS in this bill as well. We have had some pushback on helping some of the areas on immigration. Many of the entities in immigration are totally fee-based. When someone applies to come into the country with our visa system, they pay a fee to do that. Well, obviously, they are not coming in right now, so those areas of our immigration policy are really struggling right now. We should come alongside and help. That is a unique situation in a Federal agency. We should deal with election issues--maybe not like some people in this body want. In the CARES Act, we included $350 million to the States to help them in their elections for this fall--$350 million. Almost none of that has been used by States because in the bill itself it also required the State legislatures to add matching dollars to be able to come into session, and when we put that out from this body, those State legislatures were going out of session or they were locking down because they didn't know what their expenses would be. So almost no one has taken those funds because their legislature wasn't in session to vote for it and because they didn't have any ability to anticipate what funds would be needed this session, and so there is $350 million of unused money from the last bill that we should just take the strings off of and make it clear to States: You could use these funds for the election coming up this fall. Now, there is a big push to say: Let's add another $350 million. Come on, people. Let's read the last bill that we wrote and bring it forward into this bill and fix the problems from the last one. It shouldn't be that difficult. Our States are going to need help on the elections this year. There will be much greater expenses, but we want the election to go smoothly. We have already allocated them the dollars. Let's allow them to actually use it in a way that they can during this session. But that shouldn't be for just mass mailing of every ballot. Just printing off ballots and mailing it to every house doesn't solve the issue; it complicates the issue. But we should help people with their election systems. And while I speak on State funding, this whole issue of State funding does need to be addressed. During the CARES Act that passed in March, this body gave the States $150 billion. There was also an allocation for healthcare of $260 billion. There was an allocation for education of $30 billion. Why do I bring that up? The three most expensive aspects in any State budget are education, public safety, and healthcare. Those are the three most expensive portions from any State budget. This body allocated $260 billion toward healthcare, $30 billion toward education, $150 billion toward public safety and COVID expenses. Just to put that in perspective, the total budget for every State in America is $900 billion. Every State's total budget combined spending that they do in a year--$900 billion. My Democratic colleagues want us to give almost $1 trillion to the States for COVID expenses. The total budget for every State in the entire country for the entire year is just over $900 billion, and they are going to give $1 trillion to them on top of it. That is more than replacing every State budget in America. That is absurd, and that is why these negotiations are so difficult--because it is not reasonable. They can just throw a number out and say everybody needs this. Replacing the budget of every State in America is reasonable? I don't think so, especially when we have already allocated $260 billion toward healthcare, $30 billion toward education, and $150 billion toward public safety and COVID response. The real issue is with the public safety and the COVID expenses because so many of the States--now with this whole ``defund the police'' movement--don't want to allocate their public safety dollars toward public safety. They want to be able to use it for other things, not public safety. Well, that is a decision States can make, but they have the flexibility already to use those dollars. Literally, they could pay for every single law enforcement officer in their State--their salary and their benefits would be fully taken care of--but they are saying: I don't want to pay our law enforcement. I want to use it for other things. Well, those funds have been allocated, and they need to make a decision on what they are going to do with it. Now, there is a lot that could be done with this bill, but my challenge for us is, let's focus on the things that are essential to be done, not the long wish list of what people want to cram into a bill because it is getting big, and they can hide something in it. Let's keep it focused and let's continue to remember this is a health crisis and it is a season during which we should work across the aisle to solve things that are common sense and not ignore the problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4890 | null | 1,104 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we have been talking here in the Senate for months now about what needs to be done to respond to COVID-19. Right now, we are debating behind the scenes a fifth bill dealing with COVID-19. We have already passed four through the House and the Senate that the President has signed. Many Americans know the effects of those previous bills. They have received deposits from the Treasury of $1,200, and they have received assistance from the Paycheck Protection Program. Their schools have received assistance. Their hospitals have received assistance. Their States have received assistance. Their local jurisdictions have received assistance. There has been wide support in multiple areas--for housing and for health, for testing and for vaccines. All of those things have happened in the previous four bills. Yet, when we passed the last set of bills, there was a lot of thought about what would happen next. How would the virus spread? How long would this last? Would Americans continue to just stay sequestered in their homes, away from everyone else? Now, after months of dealing with this COVID-19, not only in the United States but globally, we know a lot more about not only how we are going to respond and treat the disease but also about what we are dealing with, for COVID-19 doesn't affect everyone in the same way health-wise or economically. There are some people who get COVID-19, and they, literally, never know it--they experience no symptoms at all--while others end up in a hospital, in the ICU, or on ventilators. There are even fatalities. Economically, we are at the same spot with COVID-19. Some businesses in America and some individuals in America are, literally, making more money now than they ever have before. They are in one of those businesses that is in high need--maybe home improvement. Since lots of folks are staying at home, they are doing home improvements. The price of lumber has skyrocketed and the price for replacement windows. All kinds of people are installing pools at their homes. They aren't going on vacation this year. So they are doing things to fix up their homes. Construction and home improvement have skyrocketed. Retail sales and craft businesses and things to do at home have skyrocketed. A lot of other businesses that we have seen have actually increased dramatically, not just grocery stores and department stores and such, but online retailers. They are doing really good business. In my State, the incomes from many small towns to their communities are higher now than they ever were in the history of their cities because people aren't driving to other towns to shop. They are staying at home and are shopping locally or online. So that tax revenue is going back to the cities. Literally, they are doing better now than they ever have done. For other communities and other businesses, there have been horrible effects during this time period, if you are a hotel or a convention center or a restaurant that surrounds a convention center. If the businesses deal with travel, transportation, or vacations, all of those are struggling horribly during this time period, and there are multiple others. Here is the challenge that we have: Should our response now be the same as it was in March--to just pretend that this has struck everyone exactly the same--or should we pay attention to the realities economically around the country? I think we should be more strategic and understand that what we are spending is other people's money. It is not just printed monopoly money that we can just throw out of here. It is debt on our future or it is, literally, taking money from the person next door or from your house. So what do we need to do in a bill, and what are the needs at this point? Some of them are very obvious. For the next bill that is coming, we need to focus in on vaccines, tests, and therapeutics. What are we going to do with telehealth? How are we going to be able to help? This is, first and foremost, a health crisis, and it is amazing to me thenumber of topics that are being discussed for the next bill that have nothing to do with COVID-19--nothing to do with it. My friends on the other side of the aisle came forward with the Heroes Act--a great name. It is a $3 trillion bill, and a full $1 trillion of it has nothing to do with COVID-19. Unrelated completely is $1 trillion of it because it is a big bill, and we want to get other things in. We want to just throw it in there. Why don't we start with this as a health crisis, and let's focus in on the health issues there--vaccines, testing, therapeutics, telehealth. What can we do for rural hospitals? What needs to happen at urban and suburban hospitals? Those are basic questions that should be there. One of the most successful programs that we put forward in the CARES Act was the Paycheck Protection Program. Now that it has had its headlines, as some folks have said, there are people who have abused it. Well, welcome to government. Every single program that comes out of government will be abused by someone at some time. We have seen that in the unemployment system. Unemployment insurance has gone out, and it has been widely abused. Well, so have some portions of the Paycheck Protection Program, but we have all seen the long lines at unemployment offices around the country. The reason this was put in place--the Paycheck Protection Program--was to do whatever we could to help shorten those lines at unemployment offices, for people to not have to leave and go on unemployment but to stay connected to their small business or not-for-profit. That has worked. In my State, 65,000 businesses and nonprofits have taken advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program--about $5.5 billion of assistance just in my State. But there are some things that need to be dealt with. The forgiveness system on it is just coming out--much delayed, much to our frustration, but there are some straightforward things that can be done. If you are an entity with a loan that is $150,000 or less, there should be a very straightforward process of testimonial--a single page to fill out to complete this. We want to see this. We want to see businesses with the highest need--let's say businesses with a 35-, 40-percent, 50-percent--some of them, 70-, 75-percent loss in revenue from the previous year should have an eligibility to get through this. Now, some businesses took the Paycheck Protection Program, and they had a 5-percent loss over last year. To me, that is fine because at the beginning of this, no one knew who was going to survive. Many of those business owners were in the process of saying: I am going to have to lay everyone off or I can keep them on the Paycheck Protection Program. They kept them on the Paycheck Protection Program and that helped those families have a stable time, where they knew where their check was coming from. It helped those businesses reopen, and many of them are reopening now. It kept them off the unemployment assistance. Now, if we do a second round of paycheck protection, it really needs to be focused in on those businesses that are significantly off on revenue that will not survive without some additional help. We need to be attentive to how we actually handle this and be more strategic. We are not in the same situation that we were in March. We need to also look at businesses that were funded with private equity. It makes no sense to me that if a business started and got their loan from a bank, they can get a Paycheck Protection Program, but if they got their capital from private equity, they are not eligible for this. The employees that work there don't know where the capital came from to start the business; they just know they work there. But for some reason, there is a continual pushback to say: Well, if they were funded with private equity rather than a bank, then they are evil. No, they are startup companies doing technology, innovation, healthcare. Those are the kinds of companies that are out there that are being funded with private equity, but yet we have told their employees: You can just go to unemployment, and, literally, the business next door to them: No, you get paycheck protection. That makes no sense. We should fix that. We should put into this next bill some help for schools that are reopening. Now, not every school is reopening. They are not going to need the same level of help. Some schools are not reopening or they are choosing not to. I understand that. We gave additional funds--$30 billion of funds--across the country from the previous CARES Act to help schools transition to online learning, to help them get through the process of finding cleaning supplies, do additional training. That was $30 billion that was sent out to do that. Additional dollars should be helping those schools that are reopening that will have additional expenses. They are going to have to run additional bus routes to make sure they keep kids separate. They are going to have to do A and B schedules to open up their classrooms. There are going to be greater expenses for them, so we should help those schools that are reopening through the process. That is common sense in this. There has been a big request for an additional assistance check for those that need additional assistance. There are some families who are struggling to make their payments and are going to be evicted. The $1,200 that was sent out earlier this year went out to help stop that early in the year, and some families are still unemployed and still struggling through this. What are we going to do to help them? There are some strategic ways to get out some additional assistance, but we should target it to those families of greatest need, and that should be the same with their unemployment assistance. Unemployment assistance passed in March. There was an additional $600 per week, per person that was sent out on unemployment assistance in addition to the normal State unemployment assistance. For many individuals in my State, that meant you made more on unemployment than you did on employment. That is a problem long term. Now, this program was set up to be short term; that it would be assistance through the end of July, which has now passed. It was a week ago. But individuals applying for unemployment assistance this week are still getting unemployment assistance in my State, exactly as they were in February of this year, exactly as they were in November of last year, exactly as they were in August of last year. Unemployment assistance is still happening in my State, just like it is happening in every other State. But the debate is, do we want to go above and beyond unemployment assistance that literally takes people to the spot where they make more staying at home than they do at work? Now, there are some folks who are saying: Well, that doesn't actually deincentivize work. Really? Tell that to the folks whom I have talked to who work in manufacturing, who are there at the job working every day, and the person who usually works a pod away from them is at home because they have talked to them, and they are saying: I will come back once my unemployment goes away. So this person is busting their tail working, making less than the person who is staying at home, and the person staying at home is telling their friend: I will come back when the benefits run out. That is not right for either one of those folks. That tells that person working: You are a sucker for not just staying home and getting somebody else's money. We should not incentivize for not working. We should help people get through a very difficult time, and that is what this is, but not discourage engagement in work. That is not fair to the guy or the lady who is still working. That is not fair to the employer that has opened up and saying: I have got jobs available but no one will apply. And that is not right for that family who is staying home, taking money from their neighbors, when they know they could come back and work. Now, the law says that if you are offered a job and you are on unemployment, you have to take it. But we know of way too many cases already where individuals are not taking the job they are offered, and the employer knows it is one of their employees who is a good employee, and they wantthem to come back, so they hate to turn them in. So it puts everyone in a quandary--the employer and the employee because the employee is breaking the law by staying home, teaching their family to do the wrong thing, because it gets them more money. We shouldn't put them in that spot, and we shouldn't encourage people to be in that spot. In this bill, we should deal with unemployment, but we should make sure we are helping people through this season, not incentivizing them to break the law. We should deal with nursing care and senior living. We should deal with hospital care in this bill. Those are the areas that have been the hardest hit in all of America. The largest number of fatalities that we have had and the greatest amount of expense are in that area. We should do something to come alongside them. We should do something in this bill about liability protections. I have letters and phone calls from universities in my State and from businesses in my State saying they are terrified to reengage for fear of what is going to happen with lawsuits coming in the days ahead that they can't stop. They want to be able to serve their students at school, they want to be able to serve their customers in their business and the families who depend on that, but they are afraid of an entrepreneurial lawyer that will file lawsuits and will push them to settle or push them into bankruptcy at a very difficult time for them, only because this body will not step up and do basic liability protections. Now, if there is gross negligence, we should never protect that company. But if they are doing the best that they can, why wouldn't we have basic liability protections for our universities, our schools, and our places of business? We need to have in this bill some help for the postal system. There is a lot of debate about what that should be. Is it total reform of the postal system? No, that is not what this is about. But just like we helped the State Department in the CARES Act, we should help USPS in this bill as well. We have had some pushback on helping some of the areas on immigration. Many of the entities in immigration are totally fee-based. When someone applies to come into the country with our visa system, they pay a fee to do that. Well, obviously, they are not coming in right now, so those areas of our immigration policy are really struggling right now. We should come alongside and help. That is a unique situation in a Federal agency. We should deal with election issues--maybe not like some people in this body want. In the CARES Act, we included $350 million to the States to help them in their elections for this fall--$350 million. Almost none of that has been used by States because in the bill itself it also required the State legislatures to add matching dollars to be able to come into session, and when we put that out from this body, those State legislatures were going out of session or they were locking down because they didn't know what their expenses would be. So almost no one has taken those funds because their legislature wasn't in session to vote for it and because they didn't have any ability to anticipate what funds would be needed this session, and so there is $350 million of unused money from the last bill that we should just take the strings off of and make it clear to States: You could use these funds for the election coming up this fall. Now, there is a big push to say: Let's add another $350 million. Come on, people. Let's read the last bill that we wrote and bring it forward into this bill and fix the problems from the last one. It shouldn't be that difficult. Our States are going to need help on the elections this year. There will be much greater expenses, but we want the election to go smoothly. We have already allocated them the dollars. Let's allow them to actually use it in a way that they can during this session. But that shouldn't be for just mass mailing of every ballot. Just printing off ballots and mailing it to every house doesn't solve the issue; it complicates the issue. But we should help people with their election systems. And while I speak on State funding, this whole issue of State funding does need to be addressed. During the CARES Act that passed in March, this body gave the States $150 billion. There was also an allocation for healthcare of $260 billion. There was an allocation for education of $30 billion. Why do I bring that up? The three most expensive aspects in any State budget are education, public safety, and healthcare. Those are the three most expensive portions from any State budget. This body allocated $260 billion toward healthcare, $30 billion toward education, $150 billion toward public safety and COVID expenses. Just to put that in perspective, the total budget for every State in America is $900 billion. Every State's total budget combined spending that they do in a year--$900 billion. My Democratic colleagues want us to give almost $1 trillion to the States for COVID expenses. The total budget for every State in the entire country for the entire year is just over $900 billion, and they are going to give $1 trillion to them on top of it. That is more than replacing every State budget in America. That is absurd, and that is why these negotiations are so difficult--because it is not reasonable. They can just throw a number out and say everybody needs this. Replacing the budget of every State in America is reasonable? I don't think so, especially when we have already allocated $260 billion toward healthcare, $30 billion toward education, and $150 billion toward public safety and COVID response. The real issue is with the public safety and the COVID expenses because so many of the States--now with this whole ``defund the police'' movement--don't want to allocate their public safety dollars toward public safety. They want to be able to use it for other things, not public safety. Well, that is a decision States can make, but they have the flexibility already to use those dollars. Literally, they could pay for every single law enforcement officer in their State--their salary and their benefits would be fully taken care of--but they are saying: I don't want to pay our law enforcement. I want to use it for other things. Well, those funds have been allocated, and they need to make a decision on what they are going to do with it. Now, there is a lot that could be done with this bill, but my challenge for us is, let's focus on the things that are essential to be done, not the long wish list of what people want to cram into a bill because it is getting big, and they can hide something in it. Let's keep it focused and let's continue to remember this is a health crisis and it is a season during which we should work across the aisle to solve things that are common sense and not ignore the problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4890 | null | 1,105 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we have been talking here in the Senate for months now about what needs to be done to respond to COVID-19. Right now, we are debating behind the scenes a fifth bill dealing with COVID-19. We have already passed four through the House and the Senate that the President has signed. Many Americans know the effects of those previous bills. They have received deposits from the Treasury of $1,200, and they have received assistance from the Paycheck Protection Program. Their schools have received assistance. Their hospitals have received assistance. Their States have received assistance. Their local jurisdictions have received assistance. There has been wide support in multiple areas--for housing and for health, for testing and for vaccines. All of those things have happened in the previous four bills. Yet, when we passed the last set of bills, there was a lot of thought about what would happen next. How would the virus spread? How long would this last? Would Americans continue to just stay sequestered in their homes, away from everyone else? Now, after months of dealing with this COVID-19, not only in the United States but globally, we know a lot more about not only how we are going to respond and treat the disease but also about what we are dealing with, for COVID-19 doesn't affect everyone in the same way health-wise or economically. There are some people who get COVID-19, and they, literally, never know it--they experience no symptoms at all--while others end up in a hospital, in the ICU, or on ventilators. There are even fatalities. Economically, we are at the same spot with COVID-19. Some businesses in America and some individuals in America are, literally, making more money now than they ever have before. They are in one of those businesses that is in high need--maybe home improvement. Since lots of folks are staying at home, they are doing home improvements. The price of lumber has skyrocketed and the price for replacement windows. All kinds of people are installing pools at their homes. They aren't going on vacation this year. So they are doing things to fix up their homes. Construction and home improvement have skyrocketed. Retail sales and craft businesses and things to do at home have skyrocketed. A lot of other businesses that we have seen have actually increased dramatically, not just grocery stores and department stores and such, but online retailers. They are doing really good business. In my State, the incomes from many small towns to their communities are higher now than they ever were in the history of their cities because people aren't driving to other towns to shop. They are staying at home and are shopping locally or online. So that tax revenue is going back to the cities. Literally, they are doing better now than they ever have done. For other communities and other businesses, there have been horrible effects during this time period, if you are a hotel or a convention center or a restaurant that surrounds a convention center. If the businesses deal with travel, transportation, or vacations, all of those are struggling horribly during this time period, and there are multiple others. Here is the challenge that we have: Should our response now be the same as it was in March--to just pretend that this has struck everyone exactly the same--or should we pay attention to the realities economically around the country? I think we should be more strategic and understand that what we are spending is other people's money. It is not just printed monopoly money that we can just throw out of here. It is debt on our future or it is, literally, taking money from the person next door or from your house. So what do we need to do in a bill, and what are the needs at this point? Some of them are very obvious. For the next bill that is coming, we need to focus in on vaccines, tests, and therapeutics. What are we going to do with telehealth? How are we going to be able to help? This is, first and foremost, a health crisis, and it is amazing to me thenumber of topics that are being discussed for the next bill that have nothing to do with COVID-19--nothing to do with it. My friends on the other side of the aisle came forward with the Heroes Act--a great name. It is a $3 trillion bill, and a full $1 trillion of it has nothing to do with COVID-19. Unrelated completely is $1 trillion of it because it is a big bill, and we want to get other things in. We want to just throw it in there. Why don't we start with this as a health crisis, and let's focus in on the health issues there--vaccines, testing, therapeutics, telehealth. What can we do for rural hospitals? What needs to happen at urban and suburban hospitals? Those are basic questions that should be there. One of the most successful programs that we put forward in the CARES Act was the Paycheck Protection Program. Now that it has had its headlines, as some folks have said, there are people who have abused it. Well, welcome to government. Every single program that comes out of government will be abused by someone at some time. We have seen that in the unemployment system. Unemployment insurance has gone out, and it has been widely abused. Well, so have some portions of the Paycheck Protection Program, but we have all seen the long lines at unemployment offices around the country. The reason this was put in place--the Paycheck Protection Program--was to do whatever we could to help shorten those lines at unemployment offices, for people to not have to leave and go on unemployment but to stay connected to their small business or not-for-profit. That has worked. In my State, 65,000 businesses and nonprofits have taken advantage of the Paycheck Protection Program--about $5.5 billion of assistance just in my State. But there are some things that need to be dealt with. The forgiveness system on it is just coming out--much delayed, much to our frustration, but there are some straightforward things that can be done. If you are an entity with a loan that is $150,000 or less, there should be a very straightforward process of testimonial--a single page to fill out to complete this. We want to see this. We want to see businesses with the highest need--let's say businesses with a 35-, 40-percent, 50-percent--some of them, 70-, 75-percent loss in revenue from the previous year should have an eligibility to get through this. Now, some businesses took the Paycheck Protection Program, and they had a 5-percent loss over last year. To me, that is fine because at the beginning of this, no one knew who was going to survive. Many of those business owners were in the process of saying: I am going to have to lay everyone off or I can keep them on the Paycheck Protection Program. They kept them on the Paycheck Protection Program and that helped those families have a stable time, where they knew where their check was coming from. It helped those businesses reopen, and many of them are reopening now. It kept them off the unemployment assistance. Now, if we do a second round of paycheck protection, it really needs to be focused in on those businesses that are significantly off on revenue that will not survive without some additional help. We need to be attentive to how we actually handle this and be more strategic. We are not in the same situation that we were in March. We need to also look at businesses that were funded with private equity. It makes no sense to me that if a business started and got their loan from a bank, they can get a Paycheck Protection Program, but if they got their capital from private equity, they are not eligible for this. The employees that work there don't know where the capital came from to start the business; they just know they work there. But for some reason, there is a continual pushback to say: Well, if they were funded with private equity rather than a bank, then they are evil. No, they are startup companies doing technology, innovation, healthcare. Those are the kinds of companies that are out there that are being funded with private equity, but yet we have told their employees: You can just go to unemployment, and, literally, the business next door to them: No, you get paycheck protection. That makes no sense. We should fix that. We should put into this next bill some help for schools that are reopening. Now, not every school is reopening. They are not going to need the same level of help. Some schools are not reopening or they are choosing not to. I understand that. We gave additional funds--$30 billion of funds--across the country from the previous CARES Act to help schools transition to online learning, to help them get through the process of finding cleaning supplies, do additional training. That was $30 billion that was sent out to do that. Additional dollars should be helping those schools that are reopening that will have additional expenses. They are going to have to run additional bus routes to make sure they keep kids separate. They are going to have to do A and B schedules to open up their classrooms. There are going to be greater expenses for them, so we should help those schools that are reopening through the process. That is common sense in this. There has been a big request for an additional assistance check for those that need additional assistance. There are some families who are struggling to make their payments and are going to be evicted. The $1,200 that was sent out earlier this year went out to help stop that early in the year, and some families are still unemployed and still struggling through this. What are we going to do to help them? There are some strategic ways to get out some additional assistance, but we should target it to those families of greatest need, and that should be the same with their unemployment assistance. Unemployment assistance passed in March. There was an additional $600 per week, per person that was sent out on unemployment assistance in addition to the normal State unemployment assistance. For many individuals in my State, that meant you made more on unemployment than you did on employment. That is a problem long term. Now, this program was set up to be short term; that it would be assistance through the end of July, which has now passed. It was a week ago. But individuals applying for unemployment assistance this week are still getting unemployment assistance in my State, exactly as they were in February of this year, exactly as they were in November of last year, exactly as they were in August of last year. Unemployment assistance is still happening in my State, just like it is happening in every other State. But the debate is, do we want to go above and beyond unemployment assistance that literally takes people to the spot where they make more staying at home than they do at work? Now, there are some folks who are saying: Well, that doesn't actually deincentivize work. Really? Tell that to the folks whom I have talked to who work in manufacturing, who are there at the job working every day, and the person who usually works a pod away from them is at home because they have talked to them, and they are saying: I will come back once my unemployment goes away. So this person is busting their tail working, making less than the person who is staying at home, and the person staying at home is telling their friend: I will come back when the benefits run out. That is not right for either one of those folks. That tells that person working: You are a sucker for not just staying home and getting somebody else's money. We should not incentivize for not working. We should help people get through a very difficult time, and that is what this is, but not discourage engagement in work. That is not fair to the guy or the lady who is still working. That is not fair to the employer that has opened up and saying: I have got jobs available but no one will apply. And that is not right for that family who is staying home, taking money from their neighbors, when they know they could come back and work. Now, the law says that if you are offered a job and you are on unemployment, you have to take it. But we know of way too many cases already where individuals are not taking the job they are offered, and the employer knows it is one of their employees who is a good employee, and they wantthem to come back, so they hate to turn them in. So it puts everyone in a quandary--the employer and the employee because the employee is breaking the law by staying home, teaching their family to do the wrong thing, because it gets them more money. We shouldn't put them in that spot, and we shouldn't encourage people to be in that spot. In this bill, we should deal with unemployment, but we should make sure we are helping people through this season, not incentivizing them to break the law. We should deal with nursing care and senior living. We should deal with hospital care in this bill. Those are the areas that have been the hardest hit in all of America. The largest number of fatalities that we have had and the greatest amount of expense are in that area. We should do something to come alongside them. We should do something in this bill about liability protections. I have letters and phone calls from universities in my State and from businesses in my State saying they are terrified to reengage for fear of what is going to happen with lawsuits coming in the days ahead that they can't stop. They want to be able to serve their students at school, they want to be able to serve their customers in their business and the families who depend on that, but they are afraid of an entrepreneurial lawyer that will file lawsuits and will push them to settle or push them into bankruptcy at a very difficult time for them, only because this body will not step up and do basic liability protections. Now, if there is gross negligence, we should never protect that company. But if they are doing the best that they can, why wouldn't we have basic liability protections for our universities, our schools, and our places of business? We need to have in this bill some help for the postal system. There is a lot of debate about what that should be. Is it total reform of the postal system? No, that is not what this is about. But just like we helped the State Department in the CARES Act, we should help USPS in this bill as well. We have had some pushback on helping some of the areas on immigration. Many of the entities in immigration are totally fee-based. When someone applies to come into the country with our visa system, they pay a fee to do that. Well, obviously, they are not coming in right now, so those areas of our immigration policy are really struggling right now. We should come alongside and help. That is a unique situation in a Federal agency. We should deal with election issues--maybe not like some people in this body want. In the CARES Act, we included $350 million to the States to help them in their elections for this fall--$350 million. Almost none of that has been used by States because in the bill itself it also required the State legislatures to add matching dollars to be able to come into session, and when we put that out from this body, those State legislatures were going out of session or they were locking down because they didn't know what their expenses would be. So almost no one has taken those funds because their legislature wasn't in session to vote for it and because they didn't have any ability to anticipate what funds would be needed this session, and so there is $350 million of unused money from the last bill that we should just take the strings off of and make it clear to States: You could use these funds for the election coming up this fall. Now, there is a big push to say: Let's add another $350 million. Come on, people. Let's read the last bill that we wrote and bring it forward into this bill and fix the problems from the last one. It shouldn't be that difficult. Our States are going to need help on the elections this year. There will be much greater expenses, but we want the election to go smoothly. We have already allocated them the dollars. Let's allow them to actually use it in a way that they can during this session. But that shouldn't be for just mass mailing of every ballot. Just printing off ballots and mailing it to every house doesn't solve the issue; it complicates the issue. But we should help people with their election systems. And while I speak on State funding, this whole issue of State funding does need to be addressed. During the CARES Act that passed in March, this body gave the States $150 billion. There was also an allocation for healthcare of $260 billion. There was an allocation for education of $30 billion. Why do I bring that up? The three most expensive aspects in any State budget are education, public safety, and healthcare. Those are the three most expensive portions from any State budget. This body allocated $260 billion toward healthcare, $30 billion toward education, $150 billion toward public safety and COVID expenses. Just to put that in perspective, the total budget for every State in America is $900 billion. Every State's total budget combined spending that they do in a year--$900 billion. My Democratic colleagues want us to give almost $1 trillion to the States for COVID expenses. The total budget for every State in the entire country for the entire year is just over $900 billion, and they are going to give $1 trillion to them on top of it. That is more than replacing every State budget in America. That is absurd, and that is why these negotiations are so difficult--because it is not reasonable. They can just throw a number out and say everybody needs this. Replacing the budget of every State in America is reasonable? I don't think so, especially when we have already allocated $260 billion toward healthcare, $30 billion toward education, and $150 billion toward public safety and COVID response. The real issue is with the public safety and the COVID expenses because so many of the States--now with this whole ``defund the police'' movement--don't want to allocate their public safety dollars toward public safety. They want to be able to use it for other things, not public safety. Well, that is a decision States can make, but they have the flexibility already to use those dollars. Literally, they could pay for every single law enforcement officer in their State--their salary and their benefits would be fully taken care of--but they are saying: I don't want to pay our law enforcement. I want to use it for other things. Well, those funds have been allocated, and they need to make a decision on what they are going to do with it. Now, there is a lot that could be done with this bill, but my challenge for us is, let's focus on the things that are essential to be done, not the long wish list of what people want to cram into a bill because it is getting big, and they can hide something in it. Let's keep it focused and let's continue to remember this is a health crisis and it is a season during which we should work across the aisle to solve things that are common sense and not ignore the problem. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4890 | null | 1,106 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to address a topic that Washington has been ignoring for decades. For years, Republicans fought against wasteful spending under the Obama administration. My party argued that our debt and deficits were unsustainable, and they were leaving a burden that our children and grandchildren simply can't afford. Unfortunately, my party has shown an almost equal disregard for the dangers of a growing national debt and annual deficits, as have the Democrats. Congress spends taxpayer money with no accountability--something you would never do in business or in your personal life--and our Federal Government is borrowing an unprecedented amount of money. Congress borrows money with no plan to pay it back. Our families and our businesses cannot do that. Congress is leaving debt for the next generation. Parents and grandparents don't do that. This year, between mid-March and late June, the Treasury's total borrowing rose by about $2.9 trillion, and the Federal Reserve's holdings of U.S. Treasury debt rose by about $1.6 trillion. The Federal Reserve is creating an artificial market for treasuries to keep interest rates low. This is not sustainable and will have dire consequences. There will come a time when they can't purchase any more treasuries and rates will increase. When the Federal Reserve can no longer keep interest rates low, everything from car loans to student loansto mortgages become more expensive for the American people, and the interest on our debt, which is already the fourth largest expenditure in the Federal budget, will become our largest expenditure. For every 1 percent increase in our interest rate, we are going to spend almost $2 trillion over 10 years. That is more money the taxpayers get no return on. Even during the economic boom we were experiencing, our Federal Government could not live within its means. Our Federal Government was set to spend approximately $4.6 trillion while collecting only $3.6 trillion in taxes in one of our greatest economies ever. Now, as we continue to address the coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Government this year will spend more than $7 trillion and collect much less than $3 trillion. The market is telling us that lenders are not confident this pandemic is being handled in a fiscally responsible manner. We are seeing the price of gold at a record high and the dollar devaluing, and this is just the beginning. Now Congress wants to spend more, even though we still don't know how much has already been spent from previous relief packages. What is happening in Washington, DC, is wrong. It is unfair to Americans who work hard every day to take care of their families. For months, I made a weekly video called ``Washington Waste Wednesday'' to highlight all the ways Washington is currently wasting taxpayer dollars. It wasn't hard to find examples. Officials in Washington have failed to make the tough decisions that will put our Nation on a fiscally successful path. It is the most inefficient place you can imagine. These poor choices mean a day of reckoning is coming. If our financial system comes crashing down because of excessive government spending and borrowing, history suggests we will have runaway inflation, with the price of goods skyrocketing. That will hurt the poorest families and those living on a fixed income. With inflation, fixed incomes will stay the same while the prices for necessities go up month after month. For hourly workers, wages will not grow fast enough to cover the ever-increasing costs of goods and services. This happened in the United States in the 1970s. Let's not forget about the mandatory spending programs that Congress takes no accountability for. Medicare is running out of money. When Medicare runs out of money in 2026, either doctors and hospitals will be paid significantly less or Medicare recipients will receive less care. Medicaid costs are increasing by about 5 percent a year. Social Security will run out of cash reserves by 2035. At that time there will be an automatic 20-percent reduction of Social Security payments. Our country is like a failing business without a plan. We can't accept this fate. I ran for Governor of Florida in 2010 because I could not stand to watch the fiscal mismanagement by politicians anymore. Over my 8 years as Governor, we made the tough choices to turn the State around. We grew the economy by over 30 percent, added almost 1.7 million new jobs, paid down almost one-third of State debt, and cut taxes by more than $10 billion. I was the first Governor in 20 years to actually pay down State debt. I ran for the U.S. Senate to do the same thing at the Federal level. I was tired of watching career politicians in Washington spend other people's money without a care. Washington seems to have forgotten that trillions of dollars in new spending means trillions in tax increases somewhere down the road. They want short-term solutions regardless of consequences. Career politicians say they care about you. When they run huge deficits, do they care about you? When they raise your taxes, do they care about you? When they overpromise benefits for Social Security without a funding source, do they care about you? When they overpromise Medicare benefits without a funding source, do they care about you? Maybe the intentions are good. Who knows? But, unfortunately, you can't pay for Social Security with good intentions. You can't pay for Medicare with good intentions. You can't build a lethal military with good intentions. And you can't open a business with just good intentions. These good intentions have created $27 trillion of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to answer for. Now they want to spend another $3 trillion. It is time to wake up. We can fix this and put our Nation on a fiscally responsible path. We fix this by doing what I did in Florida. We need to focus on growing the economy, cutting taxes and burdensome regulations, and streamlining permitting. We fix this by helping every American get a good job. We fix this with a focus on buying American, with the understanding that buying products made by our adversaries, like Communist China, hurts American jobs and manufacturing and threatens our national security. We fix this by making good trade deals with other freedom-loving countries, and we fix this by getting a return on every taxpayer dollar we spend. Turning around a failing business is hard. I have done that. Turning around a failing State is also hard--even harder. I have done that. Turning around the future of a nation sounds impossible, but it is not. If elected leaders don't want to do the hard work--and it is going to be hard--then they should go home. They can no longer hide behind the cowardice of political expediency. Politicians in Washington are afraid to tell you the truth, so here it is: If we want our country to survive and thrive and continue to be a beacon for freedom, prosperity, and hope around the world, we will need to make tough choices. We will need to be more productive, and we cannot rely on government programs paid for through more borrowing. We will need to reassert the fundamental principle of conservatism that the private sector and individuals--not the government--should be the driving forces behind our economic stability and success. As long as I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, I will fight to rein in the out-of-control spending that is putting our children's and our grandchildren's futures at risk. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of Florida | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4892 | null | 1,107 |
formal | cutting taxes | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to address a topic that Washington has been ignoring for decades. For years, Republicans fought against wasteful spending under the Obama administration. My party argued that our debt and deficits were unsustainable, and they were leaving a burden that our children and grandchildren simply can't afford. Unfortunately, my party has shown an almost equal disregard for the dangers of a growing national debt and annual deficits, as have the Democrats. Congress spends taxpayer money with no accountability--something you would never do in business or in your personal life--and our Federal Government is borrowing an unprecedented amount of money. Congress borrows money with no plan to pay it back. Our families and our businesses cannot do that. Congress is leaving debt for the next generation. Parents and grandparents don't do that. This year, between mid-March and late June, the Treasury's total borrowing rose by about $2.9 trillion, and the Federal Reserve's holdings of U.S. Treasury debt rose by about $1.6 trillion. The Federal Reserve is creating an artificial market for treasuries to keep interest rates low. This is not sustainable and will have dire consequences. There will come a time when they can't purchase any more treasuries and rates will increase. When the Federal Reserve can no longer keep interest rates low, everything from car loans to student loansto mortgages become more expensive for the American people, and the interest on our debt, which is already the fourth largest expenditure in the Federal budget, will become our largest expenditure. For every 1 percent increase in our interest rate, we are going to spend almost $2 trillion over 10 years. That is more money the taxpayers get no return on. Even during the economic boom we were experiencing, our Federal Government could not live within its means. Our Federal Government was set to spend approximately $4.6 trillion while collecting only $3.6 trillion in taxes in one of our greatest economies ever. Now, as we continue to address the coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Government this year will spend more than $7 trillion and collect much less than $3 trillion. The market is telling us that lenders are not confident this pandemic is being handled in a fiscally responsible manner. We are seeing the price of gold at a record high and the dollar devaluing, and this is just the beginning. Now Congress wants to spend more, even though we still don't know how much has already been spent from previous relief packages. What is happening in Washington, DC, is wrong. It is unfair to Americans who work hard every day to take care of their families. For months, I made a weekly video called ``Washington Waste Wednesday'' to highlight all the ways Washington is currently wasting taxpayer dollars. It wasn't hard to find examples. Officials in Washington have failed to make the tough decisions that will put our Nation on a fiscally successful path. It is the most inefficient place you can imagine. These poor choices mean a day of reckoning is coming. If our financial system comes crashing down because of excessive government spending and borrowing, history suggests we will have runaway inflation, with the price of goods skyrocketing. That will hurt the poorest families and those living on a fixed income. With inflation, fixed incomes will stay the same while the prices for necessities go up month after month. For hourly workers, wages will not grow fast enough to cover the ever-increasing costs of goods and services. This happened in the United States in the 1970s. Let's not forget about the mandatory spending programs that Congress takes no accountability for. Medicare is running out of money. When Medicare runs out of money in 2026, either doctors and hospitals will be paid significantly less or Medicare recipients will receive less care. Medicaid costs are increasing by about 5 percent a year. Social Security will run out of cash reserves by 2035. At that time there will be an automatic 20-percent reduction of Social Security payments. Our country is like a failing business without a plan. We can't accept this fate. I ran for Governor of Florida in 2010 because I could not stand to watch the fiscal mismanagement by politicians anymore. Over my 8 years as Governor, we made the tough choices to turn the State around. We grew the economy by over 30 percent, added almost 1.7 million new jobs, paid down almost one-third of State debt, and cut taxes by more than $10 billion. I was the first Governor in 20 years to actually pay down State debt. I ran for the U.S. Senate to do the same thing at the Federal level. I was tired of watching career politicians in Washington spend other people's money without a care. Washington seems to have forgotten that trillions of dollars in new spending means trillions in tax increases somewhere down the road. They want short-term solutions regardless of consequences. Career politicians say they care about you. When they run huge deficits, do they care about you? When they raise your taxes, do they care about you? When they overpromise benefits for Social Security without a funding source, do they care about you? When they overpromise Medicare benefits without a funding source, do they care about you? Maybe the intentions are good. Who knows? But, unfortunately, you can't pay for Social Security with good intentions. You can't pay for Medicare with good intentions. You can't build a lethal military with good intentions. And you can't open a business with just good intentions. These good intentions have created $27 trillion of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to answer for. Now they want to spend another $3 trillion. It is time to wake up. We can fix this and put our Nation on a fiscally responsible path. We fix this by doing what I did in Florida. We need to focus on growing the economy, cutting taxes and burdensome regulations, and streamlining permitting. We fix this by helping every American get a good job. We fix this with a focus on buying American, with the understanding that buying products made by our adversaries, like Communist China, hurts American jobs and manufacturing and threatens our national security. We fix this by making good trade deals with other freedom-loving countries, and we fix this by getting a return on every taxpayer dollar we spend. Turning around a failing business is hard. I have done that. Turning around a failing State is also hard--even harder. I have done that. Turning around the future of a nation sounds impossible, but it is not. If elected leaders don't want to do the hard work--and it is going to be hard--then they should go home. They can no longer hide behind the cowardice of political expediency. Politicians in Washington are afraid to tell you the truth, so here it is: If we want our country to survive and thrive and continue to be a beacon for freedom, prosperity, and hope around the world, we will need to make tough choices. We will need to be more productive, and we cannot rely on government programs paid for through more borrowing. We will need to reassert the fundamental principle of conservatism that the private sector and individuals--not the government--should be the driving forces behind our economic stability and success. As long as I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, I will fight to rein in the out-of-control spending that is putting our children's and our grandchildren's futures at risk. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of Florida | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4892 | null | 1,108 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to address a topic that Washington has been ignoring for decades. For years, Republicans fought against wasteful spending under the Obama administration. My party argued that our debt and deficits were unsustainable, and they were leaving a burden that our children and grandchildren simply can't afford. Unfortunately, my party has shown an almost equal disregard for the dangers of a growing national debt and annual deficits, as have the Democrats. Congress spends taxpayer money with no accountability--something you would never do in business or in your personal life--and our Federal Government is borrowing an unprecedented amount of money. Congress borrows money with no plan to pay it back. Our families and our businesses cannot do that. Congress is leaving debt for the next generation. Parents and grandparents don't do that. This year, between mid-March and late June, the Treasury's total borrowing rose by about $2.9 trillion, and the Federal Reserve's holdings of U.S. Treasury debt rose by about $1.6 trillion. The Federal Reserve is creating an artificial market for treasuries to keep interest rates low. This is not sustainable and will have dire consequences. There will come a time when they can't purchase any more treasuries and rates will increase. When the Federal Reserve can no longer keep interest rates low, everything from car loans to student loansto mortgages become more expensive for the American people, and the interest on our debt, which is already the fourth largest expenditure in the Federal budget, will become our largest expenditure. For every 1 percent increase in our interest rate, we are going to spend almost $2 trillion over 10 years. That is more money the taxpayers get no return on. Even during the economic boom we were experiencing, our Federal Government could not live within its means. Our Federal Government was set to spend approximately $4.6 trillion while collecting only $3.6 trillion in taxes in one of our greatest economies ever. Now, as we continue to address the coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Government this year will spend more than $7 trillion and collect much less than $3 trillion. The market is telling us that lenders are not confident this pandemic is being handled in a fiscally responsible manner. We are seeing the price of gold at a record high and the dollar devaluing, and this is just the beginning. Now Congress wants to spend more, even though we still don't know how much has already been spent from previous relief packages. What is happening in Washington, DC, is wrong. It is unfair to Americans who work hard every day to take care of their families. For months, I made a weekly video called ``Washington Waste Wednesday'' to highlight all the ways Washington is currently wasting taxpayer dollars. It wasn't hard to find examples. Officials in Washington have failed to make the tough decisions that will put our Nation on a fiscally successful path. It is the most inefficient place you can imagine. These poor choices mean a day of reckoning is coming. If our financial system comes crashing down because of excessive government spending and borrowing, history suggests we will have runaway inflation, with the price of goods skyrocketing. That will hurt the poorest families and those living on a fixed income. With inflation, fixed incomes will stay the same while the prices for necessities go up month after month. For hourly workers, wages will not grow fast enough to cover the ever-increasing costs of goods and services. This happened in the United States in the 1970s. Let's not forget about the mandatory spending programs that Congress takes no accountability for. Medicare is running out of money. When Medicare runs out of money in 2026, either doctors and hospitals will be paid significantly less or Medicare recipients will receive less care. Medicaid costs are increasing by about 5 percent a year. Social Security will run out of cash reserves by 2035. At that time there will be an automatic 20-percent reduction of Social Security payments. Our country is like a failing business without a plan. We can't accept this fate. I ran for Governor of Florida in 2010 because I could not stand to watch the fiscal mismanagement by politicians anymore. Over my 8 years as Governor, we made the tough choices to turn the State around. We grew the economy by over 30 percent, added almost 1.7 million new jobs, paid down almost one-third of State debt, and cut taxes by more than $10 billion. I was the first Governor in 20 years to actually pay down State debt. I ran for the U.S. Senate to do the same thing at the Federal level. I was tired of watching career politicians in Washington spend other people's money without a care. Washington seems to have forgotten that trillions of dollars in new spending means trillions in tax increases somewhere down the road. They want short-term solutions regardless of consequences. Career politicians say they care about you. When they run huge deficits, do they care about you? When they raise your taxes, do they care about you? When they overpromise benefits for Social Security without a funding source, do they care about you? When they overpromise Medicare benefits without a funding source, do they care about you? Maybe the intentions are good. Who knows? But, unfortunately, you can't pay for Social Security with good intentions. You can't pay for Medicare with good intentions. You can't build a lethal military with good intentions. And you can't open a business with just good intentions. These good intentions have created $27 trillion of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to answer for. Now they want to spend another $3 trillion. It is time to wake up. We can fix this and put our Nation on a fiscally responsible path. We fix this by doing what I did in Florida. We need to focus on growing the economy, cutting taxes and burdensome regulations, and streamlining permitting. We fix this by helping every American get a good job. We fix this with a focus on buying American, with the understanding that buying products made by our adversaries, like Communist China, hurts American jobs and manufacturing and threatens our national security. We fix this by making good trade deals with other freedom-loving countries, and we fix this by getting a return on every taxpayer dollar we spend. Turning around a failing business is hard. I have done that. Turning around a failing State is also hard--even harder. I have done that. Turning around the future of a nation sounds impossible, but it is not. If elected leaders don't want to do the hard work--and it is going to be hard--then they should go home. They can no longer hide behind the cowardice of political expediency. Politicians in Washington are afraid to tell you the truth, so here it is: If we want our country to survive and thrive and continue to be a beacon for freedom, prosperity, and hope around the world, we will need to make tough choices. We will need to be more productive, and we cannot rely on government programs paid for through more borrowing. We will need to reassert the fundamental principle of conservatism that the private sector and individuals--not the government--should be the driving forces behind our economic stability and success. As long as I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, I will fight to rein in the out-of-control spending that is putting our children's and our grandchildren's futures at risk. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of Florida | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4892 | null | 1,109 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to address a topic that Washington has been ignoring for decades. For years, Republicans fought against wasteful spending under the Obama administration. My party argued that our debt and deficits were unsustainable, and they were leaving a burden that our children and grandchildren simply can't afford. Unfortunately, my party has shown an almost equal disregard for the dangers of a growing national debt and annual deficits, as have the Democrats. Congress spends taxpayer money with no accountability--something you would never do in business or in your personal life--and our Federal Government is borrowing an unprecedented amount of money. Congress borrows money with no plan to pay it back. Our families and our businesses cannot do that. Congress is leaving debt for the next generation. Parents and grandparents don't do that. This year, between mid-March and late June, the Treasury's total borrowing rose by about $2.9 trillion, and the Federal Reserve's holdings of U.S. Treasury debt rose by about $1.6 trillion. The Federal Reserve is creating an artificial market for treasuries to keep interest rates low. This is not sustainable and will have dire consequences. There will come a time when they can't purchase any more treasuries and rates will increase. When the Federal Reserve can no longer keep interest rates low, everything from car loans to student loansto mortgages become more expensive for the American people, and the interest on our debt, which is already the fourth largest expenditure in the Federal budget, will become our largest expenditure. For every 1 percent increase in our interest rate, we are going to spend almost $2 trillion over 10 years. That is more money the taxpayers get no return on. Even during the economic boom we were experiencing, our Federal Government could not live within its means. Our Federal Government was set to spend approximately $4.6 trillion while collecting only $3.6 trillion in taxes in one of our greatest economies ever. Now, as we continue to address the coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Government this year will spend more than $7 trillion and collect much less than $3 trillion. The market is telling us that lenders are not confident this pandemic is being handled in a fiscally responsible manner. We are seeing the price of gold at a record high and the dollar devaluing, and this is just the beginning. Now Congress wants to spend more, even though we still don't know how much has already been spent from previous relief packages. What is happening in Washington, DC, is wrong. It is unfair to Americans who work hard every day to take care of their families. For months, I made a weekly video called ``Washington Waste Wednesday'' to highlight all the ways Washington is currently wasting taxpayer dollars. It wasn't hard to find examples. Officials in Washington have failed to make the tough decisions that will put our Nation on a fiscally successful path. It is the most inefficient place you can imagine. These poor choices mean a day of reckoning is coming. If our financial system comes crashing down because of excessive government spending and borrowing, history suggests we will have runaway inflation, with the price of goods skyrocketing. That will hurt the poorest families and those living on a fixed income. With inflation, fixed incomes will stay the same while the prices for necessities go up month after month. For hourly workers, wages will not grow fast enough to cover the ever-increasing costs of goods and services. This happened in the United States in the 1970s. Let's not forget about the mandatory spending programs that Congress takes no accountability for. Medicare is running out of money. When Medicare runs out of money in 2026, either doctors and hospitals will be paid significantly less or Medicare recipients will receive less care. Medicaid costs are increasing by about 5 percent a year. Social Security will run out of cash reserves by 2035. At that time there will be an automatic 20-percent reduction of Social Security payments. Our country is like a failing business without a plan. We can't accept this fate. I ran for Governor of Florida in 2010 because I could not stand to watch the fiscal mismanagement by politicians anymore. Over my 8 years as Governor, we made the tough choices to turn the State around. We grew the economy by over 30 percent, added almost 1.7 million new jobs, paid down almost one-third of State debt, and cut taxes by more than $10 billion. I was the first Governor in 20 years to actually pay down State debt. I ran for the U.S. Senate to do the same thing at the Federal level. I was tired of watching career politicians in Washington spend other people's money without a care. Washington seems to have forgotten that trillions of dollars in new spending means trillions in tax increases somewhere down the road. They want short-term solutions regardless of consequences. Career politicians say they care about you. When they run huge deficits, do they care about you? When they raise your taxes, do they care about you? When they overpromise benefits for Social Security without a funding source, do they care about you? When they overpromise Medicare benefits without a funding source, do they care about you? Maybe the intentions are good. Who knows? But, unfortunately, you can't pay for Social Security with good intentions. You can't pay for Medicare with good intentions. You can't build a lethal military with good intentions. And you can't open a business with just good intentions. These good intentions have created $27 trillion of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to answer for. Now they want to spend another $3 trillion. It is time to wake up. We can fix this and put our Nation on a fiscally responsible path. We fix this by doing what I did in Florida. We need to focus on growing the economy, cutting taxes and burdensome regulations, and streamlining permitting. We fix this by helping every American get a good job. We fix this with a focus on buying American, with the understanding that buying products made by our adversaries, like Communist China, hurts American jobs and manufacturing and threatens our national security. We fix this by making good trade deals with other freedom-loving countries, and we fix this by getting a return on every taxpayer dollar we spend. Turning around a failing business is hard. I have done that. Turning around a failing State is also hard--even harder. I have done that. Turning around the future of a nation sounds impossible, but it is not. If elected leaders don't want to do the hard work--and it is going to be hard--then they should go home. They can no longer hide behind the cowardice of political expediency. Politicians in Washington are afraid to tell you the truth, so here it is: If we want our country to survive and thrive and continue to be a beacon for freedom, prosperity, and hope around the world, we will need to make tough choices. We will need to be more productive, and we cannot rely on government programs paid for through more borrowing. We will need to reassert the fundamental principle of conservatism that the private sector and individuals--not the government--should be the driving forces behind our economic stability and success. As long as I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, I will fight to rein in the out-of-control spending that is putting our children's and our grandchildren's futures at risk. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of Florida | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4892 | null | 1,110 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, history has a way of repeating itself. If we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, we are apt to repeat them. As the November election draws near and as foreign adversaries again seek to meddle in our democracy, let's review our history so we can better identify and prevent future threats. In late July 2016, Obama's FBI opened an investigation into the Trump campaign that ended up spiraling out of control for years--4 years. The investigation was ultimately based, in large part, on what is known as the Steele dossier, which was a bunch of unverified claims from Russian Government sources. It happens that that dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and by the Clinton campaign. We know that its author, Christopher Steele, simultaneously pitched those same unverified claims to U.S. media outlets, which then reported on them without even testing their veracity. That is not responsible journalism. We know that Members of this Senate publicly seized on those unverified media reports to attack their political rivals. They even made references to the ``secret FBI investigations'' to give the unverified, foreign-sourced claims a veneer of credibility. We know that those unverified claims became part of the focus of a sweeping and unnecessary multiyear investigation by some of the Justice Department's most aggressive prosecutors. In the end, they found no crime by the campaign or President Trump, despite the dossier's allegations. Also, that shameful and damaging episode was propelled by selective leaks from government officials and breathless broadcasting by the press and the opposing political view. Of course, now it is undergoing a postmortem. What we are finding out isn't very pretty, and the people behind it ought to be ashamed--ought to be very ashamed. We have learned that some of those now-debunked claims of collusion with a foreign adversary were actually sourced to that same foreign adversary. In other words, those claims were assessed to be Russian disinformation. Democrats got duped into falsely accusing their political rivals of doing the very thing they were actually complicit in. We have learned that senior FBI officials had such disdain for President Trump that they pushed the unverified information despite repeated warnings of its flaws. They wanted to believe so badly in the politically convenient narrative that they failed to do their jobs. They lied to a court to spy on the campaign. They leaked memos to launch a special counsel investigation. They even doctored the paperwork--all to advance an investigation rooted in lies, innuendo, and foreign disinformation. I could go on about the harmful consequences from the hysteria that consumed the last few years, but the lesson from it all is very simple: Our adversaries will do anything to hijack our political differences to sow discord and distrust. Our adversaries want us at each other's throat. So long as we are fighting amongst ourselves, they win. Why do I bring this up now? Because exactly 4 years later, we are watching the same group run the same play today. If we aren't careful, they will win again. Just like in 2016, foreign sources are pushing unverified material about political candidates; just like in 2016, that material has reportedly found its way into the U.S. intelligence reviews; and just like in 2016, political rivals in Congress and the press are using the unverified foreign sources and their claims to suggest collusion between Republicans and foreign adversaries. Just remember what I said--just like in 2016. In the last few weeks, Democrats have falsely accused me and Senator Johnson of receiving packets of information, including tapes, from a Ukrainian. That is false reporting based on leaks from a letter written by Senators Schumer, Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff, which is itself based on cherry-picked innuendo from classified documents. This Ukrainian claims that he also sent the information to several Democrats. These Democrats have also denied receiving anything. Again, what is this all about? The goal is to sow as much confusion as possible. The claims are baseless. Neither I nor anyone on my staff had anything to do with him. We never reached out to him or received anything from him. We never received or reviewed anything like what was described in the Democrats' leaked documents. Here is the rub. But that didn't stop the press from reporting the story anyway. Remember, 2016, 2017, and 2018? It didn't stop the press from reaching out to this Ukrainian to present him with the apparently leaked classified information from the Democrats' letter. Let me be clear. My investigation with Senator Johnson is based on how the Obama administration formulated its Ukraine policy, which then-Vice President Biden oversaw while his son was on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian natural gas company that was under investigation. Did the corrupt firm get special access or special treatment because of its ties to the Vice President's son? We should know that. Did the Obama administration appropriately address any conflicts of interest? We should know that. In fact, the American people should know that. In pursuit of those facts--now, following the leads where they take you, so I say, in pursuit of the facts, we have requested records from the State Department, National Archives, Department of Justice, some other Federal agencies, and the U.S. consulting firm Blue Star Strategies. We have also talked with current and former U.S. Government officials. Isn't this odd? Apparently, Obama administration records and speaking with Obama administration officials is, to our Democratic friends, foreign or Russian disinformation. Isn't that odd? As Senator Johnson and I noted to our Democratic colleagues in a letter when we answered their letter--if it is, then that means the Obama administration routinely peddled in it as well. Democrats have suggested that the cause of their concern is Andrii Telizhenko. In March 2020, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee sought to subpoena him only for records from his yearlong employment with Blue Star Strategies--a Democratic consulting firm that lobbied the U.S. Government on behalf of the Biden-connected Ukrainian energy firm. Blue Star also had contracts at the highest levels of President Obama's administration. Notably, Mr. Telizhenko had working relationships with Obama administration officials I don't recall ever any Democrat raising concerns about Mr. Telizhenko being a national security threat while he was meeting with the Obama administration, but, apparently, he suddenly becomes one when Republicans ask for records involving his time at a Democratic lobby shop. Truth be told, the Democrats should know a thing or two about Russian disinformation. Investigative work by me and Senator Johnson has revealed now declassified intelligence reporting that parts of the Steele dossier were parts of the Russian disinformation campaign. I am not aware of the Democrats commenting publicly on this very disturbing revelation. Where is their outrage about concerns of actual Russian disinformation contained in the Steele dossier and at the same time Russian disinformation paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton? The Steele dossier is the very, very definition of election interference, and yet we hear no objection from Democrats. Did the Democrats and the Clinton campaign know that the dossier was filled with Russian disinformation and run with it, anyway, knowing it would cause damage to Trump, his campaign, and administration? Is Russian disinformation synonymous with Democratic National Committee disinformation? Maybe the Democrats don't want to look under the hood of the fake Russia investigation because--because they would be front and center. I would like to remind my Democratic colleagues that I ordered my staff to interview Donald Trump, Jr., and Republican officials during my time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and we did so. At the same time, ask yourself if I ever requested an interview with Hunter Biden. If I did that, how would the Democrats react? My fellow Americans, this is where we are at now. The Democrats live by the motto ``Do as I say, not as I do.'' Yet they accuse me and my colleague, Senator Johnson, of playing politics and engaging in a disinformation campaign. The hard truth is, it is the Democrats who are engaged in a disinformation campaign all because the facts don't fit into their political narrative. Their silence regarding the Steele dossier and fake Russia investigation, yet complaints about my legitimate oversight investigation, is proof of that. In conclusion, these recent media reports hinge on the leak of Democrats' classified documents, which they hadn't shared with their Republican colleagues. Only after the stories were published--I want to emphasize, only after the stories were published--were I and my staff able to review the Democrats' documents. Their letter is full of cherry-picked lines designed to shoehorn Republicans into warnings of a very real threat that faces all of us. Their letter attempts to cast Republicans as unwitting pawns in foreign disinformation, but it appears that the Democrats are playing the role as a useful idiot for foreign adversaries. The leaks only further distort the content of their letter. In no conceivable way do the facts support the Democrats' and the media's preposterous narrative. Here is what really bothers me the most. My Democratic colleagues have known me for a very long time. They know who I am. They know where to find me. And they know that if they were so concerned about what I was allegedly up to, they should have just raised all of those issues with me. This nonsense of orchestrated leaks to plant stories and falsely accusing me of dealing in disinformation based on actualdisinformation that I wasn't even privy to serves only the interest of our shared adversaries. This happens to be the behavior of cowards. And, of course, it should stop. As I started out my remarks today, we have seen this movie before. It didn't end well for those who relied on a disinformation dossier in 2016. Finally, the truth is slowly starting to come out and the FBI, the media, and the Members of Congress who touted the disinformation look pretty bad today. I started out by saying we need to learn from history--I believe it was George Santayana who said something like that maybe 100 years ago--or you are going to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's not repeat this history. Instead, we ought to be learning from it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4893 | null | 1,111 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the second topic I wanted to talk about is that we spend lots of time discussing what to do in this next phase of dealing with the coronavirus legislation. I want to talk about something we did earlier and the results it has produced. In April, Senator Alexander and I proposed that the National Institutes of Health create a ``Shark Tank'' program for scientists to develop new technologies for COVID-19 testing. NIH set up that program very quickly. We gave them the authority and money to do it, but they did in a week what they normally would have done in 6 months. They have been working overtime ever since with the private sector and with BARDA, or the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, to meet the tremendous need for quicker and earlier tests. The Presiding Officer and I talked about this just the other day. The President is right in his view that some of these tests only tell us information that gives us more data. We need tests that are quicker and have an immediate response. When you go get a test and you don't have a response for 5 days, that really doesn't do anybody a whole lot of good. You have been moving around for 5 days, maybe without symptoms, and you don't know that you are continuing to spread the virus. If you had known in 5 minutes or 15 minutes what it took you 5 days to find out, how many less people would have gotten the disease if you had known what you needed to know when you needed to know it? We need tests that give accurate results in minutes, that are easy to take, and are inexpensive--tests that may cost from a $1 to $5 or $6, that give you an immediate response. So that is what we asked of this program at the National Institutes of Health to work on, to put together scientists, researchers, and engineers to come up with their boldest ideas. So far, since April 29, 650 applications have been submitted with ideas from single individuals or businesses who say: I think this would work. That would be sort of the starting point. By the way, a lot more than 650 people had ``this will work'' ideas, but when NIH sat down and looked, they came up with 650 applicants they thought needed a careful look. Thirty-one of those projects have gone into phase 1 testing. They go through a process of validation, seeing if the likelihood that this will work is as great as what the scientists, engineers, and technologists who populate the shark tank thought it would be. NIH announced that 20 of those projects would be considered even more closely over a few weeks in phase 2, and just last week, NIH selected 7 companies that would start scaling up production of their technology. Taxpayers are investing about $250 million to help those tests get out there quickly. These tests could be available as earlyas next month. Some of them are the type of rapid tests that give a result on site. One test uses a handheld device that can detect the virus within 30 minutes. Another test company has developed a way to speed up lab testing so that labs that now handle hundreds of tests can handle tens of thousands in the same period of time. These kinds of technologies and others are essential if we want to get our society fully reopened. In early April, there was an average of 145,000 tests a day. Today, we are running about 800,000 tests, but often they are not the kind of tests we need, and they are not the numbers we need. We need tests that millions of people can take dozens of times. We need tests for every person who walks into an office or a factory or a nursing home or a school or a childcare center so that there is confidence in knowing they are not bringing the virus into that center. It is a high hurdle, but I think it is one that we are going to clear. The HEALS Act includes another $15 billion for testing to help in our priorities, which are nursing homes and daycare centers, childcare centers, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. Those are areas where we think the government itself has an extraordinary obligation to make the difference. That $16 billion, added to the $9 billion of money for this purpose that hasn't been spent up until now, means that we have that kind of big investment to see that people have tests that work for them and work quickly. For this to happen, Congress has to act. Congress has to move. We have to be supportive of efforts that get our society back to school, back to work, back to childcare, and back to better health. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BLUNT | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4895-2 | null | 1,112 |
formal | bankers | null | antisemitic | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, rural hospitals like King's Daughters Medical Center in my hometown of Brookhaven have always been the backbone of healthcare in Mississippi. The work of the staff at these rural hospitals during the pandemic has been remarkable. Dedicated nurses like my friends Larue Lambert, Tammy Livingston, Misty Britt, Christina Miller, and their coworkers--which are so many--toil every day under heavy stress and heart-wrenching situations to care for patients and their families. They are lifesavers, and they are best friends to total strangers. They take on extra shifts and duties while doing what they can to keep morale up. They are healthcare heroes who are enduring extreme conditions. Doctors like Dr. Jeff Ross are working through both physical and mental exhaustion. Yet they continue to do their job, selflessly managing the care of their fellow Mississippians. In the heavily affected Jackson metropolitan area, the University of Mississippi Medical Center has brought its unique capabilities to bear. In the early days of the pandemic, its research labs rushed to create its own in-house COVID test. And the UMC National Telehealth Center of Excellence quickly ramped up technology to triage patients for testing and provide socially distanced care. I greatly admire UMC's work with the Federal Government on best telehealth practices during a pandemic. As potential treatments have emerged, UMC researchers and healthcare providers have stood up eight cutting-edge COVID clinical trials in their new clinical trials unit. Our healthcare providers aren't the only ones who have been working to protect the health of Mississippians. Industries across the State have quickly pivoted to provide needed supplies to fight COVID-19. For example, distilleries like Wonderbird Spirits in Taylor, Cathead Distillery in Jackson, and Lazy Magnolia Brewery in Kiln made the quick decision to begin producing hand sanitizer early in the pandemic. Furniture companies, like Confortaire in Tupelo, stepped up to produce needed PPE for the North Mississippi Medical Center and our local schools. And Mississippi Prison Industries, a nonprofit that gives incarcerated individuals the opportunity to be employed and gain work experience, is producing up to 15,000 masks and 7,000 isolation gowns per day. Since the start of this pandemic, I recognized that we are dealing with two emergencies. There is the healthcare emergency and the economic emergency. I am proud of the many ways in which Mississippians are helping each other weather these difficult economic times. Mississippi bankers worked around the clock, 7 days a week, to help small businesses access the Paycheck Protection Program loans. Our friend Brad Jones at the Bank of Franklin in Meadville, MS, was so helpful in keeping me abreast of the needs of our local business owners. Because of their efforts, Mississippi ranked No. 1 in the entire Nation in PPP loans, with nearly 50,000 loans processed. This tireless work is helping small businesses stay open with their employees at work. Ensuring Mississippians have access to food has been a challenge. A Mississippian who has been a godsend tomany families is Andy Mercier, who leads Merchants Foodservice in Hattiesburg. In partnership with the Mississippi Food Network, his 800 employees have remained on the payroll and worked to provide more than 100,000 gallons of milk and nearly half a million food produce boxes to those in need. These USDA Farmers to Families boxes filled with food products from Mississippi farmers and producers have sustained families and helped our hard-hit agricultural industry. In addition to efforts in the private sector, our churches and nonprofits across our State are also working tirelessly for Mississippians. St. James United Methodist Church in Columbus coordinated with a Delta catfish producer to distribute five tons of Mississippi farm-raised catfish to those in need in the Golden Triangle region. Finally, I could not stand up here today and fail to mention our Mississippi teachers, especially as so many schools across our State are beginning the new academic year this month. Last spring, our teachers accepted the challenge and quickly transitioned their classrooms to a new kind of learning through technology and other socially distanced means. While those challenges continue as schools navigate how best to serve students this fall, each and every one of our teachers will be in my prayers over the next few weeks. In every facet of our society, we have heroes standing up to help their neighbors during unprecedented challenges. To all of the healthcare workers and first responders on the frontlines against this virus, to all the researchers racing to test treatments and develop protocols, to all of the people making hand sanitizers and PPE to help prevent the spread of this virus, to all the bankers and small businesses working to keep people on the payroll, to all of our farmers, ranchers, food distributors, and grocery store workers keeping food on the store shelves and on our tables, to all of our churches and nonprofit organizations serving our communities, and to our teachers who are facing challenges they could have never imagined, from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you. Your heroic labors are noticed, and they are greatly appreciated. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4898-2 | null | 1,113 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, rural hospitals like King's Daughters Medical Center in my hometown of Brookhaven have always been the backbone of healthcare in Mississippi. The work of the staff at these rural hospitals during the pandemic has been remarkable. Dedicated nurses like my friends Larue Lambert, Tammy Livingston, Misty Britt, Christina Miller, and their coworkers--which are so many--toil every day under heavy stress and heart-wrenching situations to care for patients and their families. They are lifesavers, and they are best friends to total strangers. They take on extra shifts and duties while doing what they can to keep morale up. They are healthcare heroes who are enduring extreme conditions. Doctors like Dr. Jeff Ross are working through both physical and mental exhaustion. Yet they continue to do their job, selflessly managing the care of their fellow Mississippians. In the heavily affected Jackson metropolitan area, the University of Mississippi Medical Center has brought its unique capabilities to bear. In the early days of the pandemic, its research labs rushed to create its own in-house COVID test. And the UMC National Telehealth Center of Excellence quickly ramped up technology to triage patients for testing and provide socially distanced care. I greatly admire UMC's work with the Federal Government on best telehealth practices during a pandemic. As potential treatments have emerged, UMC researchers and healthcare providers have stood up eight cutting-edge COVID clinical trials in their new clinical trials unit. Our healthcare providers aren't the only ones who have been working to protect the health of Mississippians. Industries across the State have quickly pivoted to provide needed supplies to fight COVID-19. For example, distilleries like Wonderbird Spirits in Taylor, Cathead Distillery in Jackson, and Lazy Magnolia Brewery in Kiln made the quick decision to begin producing hand sanitizer early in the pandemic. Furniture companies, like Confortaire in Tupelo, stepped up to produce needed PPE for the North Mississippi Medical Center and our local schools. And Mississippi Prison Industries, a nonprofit that gives incarcerated individuals the opportunity to be employed and gain work experience, is producing up to 15,000 masks and 7,000 isolation gowns per day. Since the start of this pandemic, I recognized that we are dealing with two emergencies. There is the healthcare emergency and the economic emergency. I am proud of the many ways in which Mississippians are helping each other weather these difficult economic times. Mississippi bankers worked around the clock, 7 days a week, to help small businesses access the Paycheck Protection Program loans. Our friend Brad Jones at the Bank of Franklin in Meadville, MS, was so helpful in keeping me abreast of the needs of our local business owners. Because of their efforts, Mississippi ranked No. 1 in the entire Nation in PPP loans, with nearly 50,000 loans processed. This tireless work is helping small businesses stay open with their employees at work. Ensuring Mississippians have access to food has been a challenge. A Mississippian who has been a godsend tomany families is Andy Mercier, who leads Merchants Foodservice in Hattiesburg. In partnership with the Mississippi Food Network, his 800 employees have remained on the payroll and worked to provide more than 100,000 gallons of milk and nearly half a million food produce boxes to those in need. These USDA Farmers to Families boxes filled with food products from Mississippi farmers and producers have sustained families and helped our hard-hit agricultural industry. In addition to efforts in the private sector, our churches and nonprofits across our State are also working tirelessly for Mississippians. St. James United Methodist Church in Columbus coordinated with a Delta catfish producer to distribute five tons of Mississippi farm-raised catfish to those in need in the Golden Triangle region. Finally, I could not stand up here today and fail to mention our Mississippi teachers, especially as so many schools across our State are beginning the new academic year this month. Last spring, our teachers accepted the challenge and quickly transitioned their classrooms to a new kind of learning through technology and other socially distanced means. While those challenges continue as schools navigate how best to serve students this fall, each and every one of our teachers will be in my prayers over the next few weeks. In every facet of our society, we have heroes standing up to help their neighbors during unprecedented challenges. To all of the healthcare workers and first responders on the frontlines against this virus, to all the researchers racing to test treatments and develop protocols, to all of the people making hand sanitizers and PPE to help prevent the spread of this virus, to all the bankers and small businesses working to keep people on the payroll, to all of our farmers, ranchers, food distributors, and grocery store workers keeping food on the store shelves and on our tables, to all of our churches and nonprofit organizations serving our communities, and to our teachers who are facing challenges they could have never imagined, from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you. Your heroic labors are noticed, and they are greatly appreciated. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4898-2 | null | 1,114 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor again today to speak about an obscure section of immigration law that has a direct impact on the lives of literally millions of people living and working in the United States. I am here to speak about the plight of immigrant workers who are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system, known as the green card backlog. Many of these immigrants are essential workers helping to lead the fight against COVID-19. We have just heard tributes on the floor to these healthcare heroes from Senators on the other side. This green card backlog, which I speak to, puts them and their families at risk of losing their immigration status and being deported from the United States. Under current law, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas--also known as green cards--available each year. As a result, many immigrants are stuck in crippling backlogs for years, waiting and praying for the moment when their number comes up. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line, waiting for these green cards, including 1 million immigrant workers and their families. Despite this number--5 million--there are only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards available each year. These backlogs are really hard on families. They are caught in immigration limbo. What happens to the children is particularly awful. Children in many of these families age out while the parents are waiting for the green cards. What does that mean? They reach the age of 21, and then these children, as adults, face deportation because they are no longer under the age of 21 by the time the green cards are available. The solution to the green card backlog is so clear: Increase the number of green cards. I have introduced legislation known as the RELIEF Act with Senator Pat Leahy and Senator Mazie Hirono. The RELIEF Act would increase the number of green cards to clear the backlogs for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. The RELIEF Act would protect aging out children who qualify for a green card based on the parents' immigration petition. This RELIEF Act is not new; it is based on the bipartisan 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. I know a little bit about it. That bill was written by eight Senators, and I was one of them--four Democrats, four Republicans. We worked for months. We took the bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee. We faced 200 amendments, I believe, and then brought it to the floor, subject to even more amendments. At the end of the day, that bill passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 on the floor of the Senate. But Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives, refused to even consider this comprehensive immigration bill. If they had, we wouldn't be here today. That bill and the provisions we added to it eliminated the green card backlog. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the Republican side are still unwilling to increase the number of immigrant visas even by one. They want to keep these immigrant workers on temporary visas where they are at risk of losing their immigration status and being deported. The senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, introduced a bill, S. 386, known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to address the green card backlog. I have a basic concern with Senator Lee's bill. S. 386 includes no--no--additional green cards. Without additional green cards, S. 386 will not reduce the green card backlog. Don't take it from me; listen to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Here is what they say about Senator Lee's legislation: ``S. 386 would not reduce future backlogs compared to current law.'' This is not a partisan group; it is the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. S. 386 would not reduce future backlogs. Despite my concerns about Senator Lee's bill, I told him I was willing to sit down and work in good faith to see if there was something we could agree on. Last December, we reached an agreement--a good one. Republicans object to increasing the number of green cards, and, as a result, even our agreement--the amendment we agreed to--wouldn't reduce the green card backlog. But it was a good bill that we proposed. Let me highlight two key provisions of this agreement. We protect immigrants and their families stuck in the backlog. Immigrant workers and their immediate family members would be allowed to ``early file'' for their green cards. This was a proposal from Senator Lee that I thought was good and I was willing to support. That doesn't mean they would receive their green cards early, but they would be able to switch jobs and travel without losing their immigration status. That, to me, was only sensible. Early filing adds a critical protection that was not in Senator Lee's original bill. It prevents the children of immigrant workers from aging out of green card eligibility so they will not face deportation while they are waiting for a green card. Our agreement also would crack down on the abuse of H1-B temporary work visas. The amendment we agreed to would prohibit a company from hiring additional H1-B workers if the company's workforce were more than 50 employees and more than 50 percent of them were temporary workers. These shell companies were created for outsourcing Americans jobs and abusing the H1-B visa process. I know because Senator Grassley--Republican of Iowa--and I introduced this reform years and years ago when this abuse became so obvious. It targets the top recipients of H1-B visas, which are outsourcing companies that use loopholes in the law to exploit immigrant workers and to offshore American workers' jobs. Two weeks ago, I came to the floor of the Senate to ask that we pass this agreement. Unfortunately, at that moment, Senator Lee objected. Instead, he offered a revised version of our December agreement, including changes that are required by the Trump administration. First, Senator Lee wants to remove a provision known as the hold harmless clause. That assured immigrants who are already waiting for a green card--sometimes for years--would not lose their place in line because Congress changed the rules in the middle of the game. Second, Senator Lee wanted to delay for 3 years the effective date of this 50-50 rule to crack down on outsourcing companies. I don't believe we should give these companies that are outsourcing American jobs and exploiting immigrant workers a free pass for 3 years. Third, Senator Lee wanted to delay for years early filing for people who are stuck in the green card backlog. Any children who would age out in the meantime would lose their chance for a green card and be subject to deportation. Those changes suggested by the Senator from Utah were unacceptable, but because there are so many lives at stake here, families at stake here--and I know the intensity of emotion behind this issue--I was determined to keep working to see if we could find some common ground. Last Tuesday, I sent Senator Lee another compromise offer. The Senate Republican leader is planning to recess the Senate in a few days, so I thought it was important to come to the floor today to try to pass this proposal before the Senate convenes. Let me be clear. This isn't how we are supposed to make laws in the Senate. Last year, I sent a letter--joined by every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee--to the senior Senator from Texas, John Cornyn, chair of the Immigration Subcommittee. We asked for the regular order of business in the Senate, which so seldom occurs now. We asked Senator Cornyn, as chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, to hold a hearing on this complicated legislation that addresses the green card backlog. We wanted them to include in the hearing consideration of Senator Lee's bill and my legislation, the RELIEF Act. We requested a hearing with witnesses, a markup, a bill, a vote in the committee, and a vote on the floor. It is almost like something called the U.S. Senate used to be. This would help the Senate to understand, during the course of this hearing and debate, the impact of each of these proposals and to pass legislation that would actually fix the backlog. That really is how the Senate used to work. I know it is hard for newer Members to believe it. The Immigration Subcommittee is certainly not too busy to take up this hearing. For this session of Congress, which began a year and a half ago, the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee has held one hearing--one. Unfortunately, Senator Cornyn rejected our request. This leaves me no other option but to bring this proposal directly to the Senate floor. Let me explain what my amendment would do. First, it would ensure that the children of immigrant workers do not ageout while waiting for a green card. This provision would not increase the number of green cards. It would not provide any special benefits. It would simply allow children of immigrant workers to keep their place in line for a green card and to be protected from deportation until they can get their green card. Second, my amendment would delay the bill section that changes the distribution of green cards by 1 year. This provision, which Senator Lee actually proposed earlier this year, would not replace the hold-harmless provision; however, it would allow processing time for immigrants with pending applications to get their green cards. Third, my amendment would allow for immediate implementation of the 50-50 H-1B visa rule. I was told that the purpose of delaying it 3 years was to protect those currently working for these companies. So instead of the 3-year delay, my amendment would exempt renewals for current H-1B employees, which gives current employees the chance to apply for early filing without creating a loophole for outsourcing firms. What I offered Senator Lee after months and months of deliberation and negotiation was a good-faith effort to find common ground. There are so many lives at stake. So many families are following this debate because it literally will decide the fate of each of these individuals who are applying for the green cards and members of their family. It is heartbreaking to meet these families who have been waiting for years for a green card and to realize that the limitations of our system today make it so difficult. Many of these are good, hard-working people in America who are doing the right thing. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, there are physicians whom I have met and talked to personally who have driven hundreds of miles to plead their case with me. This one physician brought his young daughter; I think she was about 12 years old. I haven't forgotten her to this day. She traveled 200 miles to beg me to try to help. That is why I came in with this amendment in an effort to protect her and give her family a chance to be part of America's future. I will now request unanimous consent to pass my amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Durbin substitute amendment at the desk be considered agreed to; the bill, as amended, 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. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4899-2 | null | 1,115 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues today--the Senator from Mississippi, the Senator from Kansas, and so forth--for coming down and spending just a little bit of time talking about the wonderful heroes we have in our home States, and we really do have so, so many of them. While the country is anxiously awaiting Washington to come together and pass an updated COVID relief package, we are truly blessed to have everyday heroes back in our 50 States who are working around the clock to help out their neighbors. Essential workers haven't taken a break. They have been keeping our country running--and not just during this global pandemic but every single day. I have heard, time and again, stories of Iowans helping Iowans. Folks are volunteering their time and their talents to serve their communities and ensure no one feels alone during this time of social distancing. When my friend Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds announced that there was a shortage of face masks to protect frontline workers, Iowans, including my own mother, started sewing. Deb Siggins of Lisbon, IA, has made more than 400 masks that she has donated to a local hospital, her friends, and coworkers, the local fire department, grocery store employees, and elderly patients. She has even turned a tree near her home into a ``giving tree'' decorated with her homemade masks for people to take, which she is constantly updating. Deb plans to keep making the masks until they are no longer needed because she believes that sewing is her gift from God, which she can use to help others. Mary Shotwell of Des Moines wanted to give back to those helping her during this pandemic. In ``i-sew-lation,'' as she describes it, Mary sewed masks for her entire neighborhood and healthcare workers at Broadlawns Medical Center. In addition to the demand for masks, there has also been an increased need for food, especially to feed our hungry kiddos. Linn-Mar teacher Carla Ironside, who hasn't seen her students in the classroom since March, now sees some of them when they pick up meals at Feeding Lunches to Youth in Marion and Cedar Rapids, where she volunteers. Carla says the opportunity to serve these meals helps calm her anxious mind, knowing her students are fed. She said: ``I get to see their smiles . . . and it helps me, and I think it helps them.'' But it is not just our wonderful teachers; students are doing their part too. Allie Stutting of Princeton, IA, who is a University of Iowa student, launched an effort to mobilize her peers to serve and protect those at heightened risk. Worried about the threat COVID posed to her grandparents and the elderly, Allie set up a network of young people called the Iowa City Errand-ers to get groceries and food, pick up prescriptions, and run other errands for older folks and others in need. Allie's idea has inspired an army of over 400 volunteers--yes, 400 volunteers, folks. The story of these everyday heroes continues. To keep those who are venturing out safe, ambassadors from Operation Downtown are walking around Des Moines, cleaning and sanitizing handrailings, door handles, parking meters, and other high-touch surfaces. Julie Skalberg, an Operation Downtown ambassador, explains that it is an effort to help folks feel secure during what can be a very scary time. Despite the potential risk, Cynthia Allen--another Operation Downtown ambassador--says she feels that it is an honor to give back to our community. Folks, the actions of these and many, many others like them who are pitching in and doing their part are examples of what I like to call ``Iowa Nice.'' For each of them, serving others is not a chore but, rather, a gift greeted with gratitude. At a time filled with immeasurable uncertainty, these heartland heroes are bringing comfort to their communities, including complete strangers, many who are isolated and alone. Defeating this virus will require the development of an effective vaccine, and Iowa is helping to lead the way in this effort. Right now, the hard-working folks at the University of Iowa's Medical School are working with Pfizer to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In the annual Defense bill that recently passed the Senate, I helped increase funding for these types of studies and developments. The efforts of our bright young Iowa college students, combined with the work of Operation Warp Speed and the administration, provide great hope for the future development of cures, treatments, and vaccines. Now, as we wait for the results, let's not forget the hope that the stories of our everyday COVID heroes bring. It is the Iowa way: stepping up and doing your part--meeting the needs of family, friends, and even strangers. Folks, I have said it before, and I will say it yet once again here today: We will get through these challenging times, and we will do it together. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ERNST | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4899 | null | 1,116 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are living in some really unprecedented times. The economic impact of this global pandemic on our Nation, our people, and our communities has been nothing short of devastating. Within weeks of the start of this pandemic, we went from being one of the best economies that the world has ever seen to some of the deepest levels of unemployment we have ever seen. While the unemployment rate improves each month, countless Americans are still suffering from business closures, from layoffs, and from furloughs. Ultimately, the best economic stimulus we can offer in this hour of need is to foster opportunities for Americans to find meaningful work and to achieve economic independence. We have to ensure that our immigration system does not punitively disadvantage our own citizens from working in their chosen field, does not create unnecessary obstacles to achieving economic independence, and that it does not unnaturally depress wages. I echo President Trump's bold call to put America's interests first as we work toward economic recovery. During this economic crisis, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned entity, made the decision to furlough its American workers and replace them with contractors who rely on work-based immigrant labor. Many of these same outsourcing companies are able to conduct operations for far less money because they pay immigrant workers below market wages and require them to work, in some circumstances, under terrible conditions. It was never the intention of any employment-based visa program to crowd out American workers in this way or to allow for the exploitation of legal immigrant workers. I fully support President Trump in making that clear in his actions earlier this week. Let me be clear. This legislation, S. 386, Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, does not add a single green card or additional visa to the current numbers. No. It only lifts the per-country caps on applications for green cards for immigrants who are already here. So it doesn't add to the number; it just lifts this artificial, arbitrary per-country cap. In times of high unemployment, if we need to reform other work-based immigration programs that protect American workers, let's do it. If we need to end the optional practical training program to ease the burden on American graduates entering the economy, let's do it. If we need to reform the H-1B program and make significant reductions in the number of work-based immigrants who come into this country, let's talk about that. I support these reforms, and that is why I worked with Senators Grassley and Durbin, among so many others in this body, to add significant reforms to the H-1B program, to the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. This includes a reduction in the number of work-based visa holders that any one company may lawfully sponsor. This reform, included at Senator Durbin's request, is a good one, and it aims to protect not only American workers but immigrants as well by significantly curbing the system that allows for both the exploitation of visa holders and the depression of wages for all employees in a given sector. Its passage into law will increase the opportunity for Americans to compete for these positions. The bill also includes provisions strengthening the Department of Labor's ability to enforce and investigate claims that employers are providing less than fair wages and working conditions for immigrant workers, requiring employers to disclose more information regarding their H-1B hiring practices and ensuring that employers may not use other visas to circumvent the H-1B caps. We must put Americans first. These provisions seek to do just that. Unless we are willing to completely end the work-based visa programs, we have an obligation to ensure they are administered and allocated in accordance with the principles that we espouse as Americans. My goal in sponsoring this legislation many years ago--nearly a decade ago, in fact--was simply to bring some equity into this system. I have always been struck by the fact that the government has conditioned a benefit--in this case, a green card and a pathway to citizenship, given that this is a series of immigrant visa programs at issue--based solely on the applicants' country of origin. There may have been some legitimate reason many decades ago, in fact, for this. I almost can't think of what those legitimate reasons might have been. Regardless, this has led to a system that largely discriminates against green card applicants from one country--and I mean literally one country. This is inconsistent with our founding principles. This is not how we try to do things as Americans. And it is not right. Today, if you are a work-based immigrant from India entering into the EB-2 green card application process, you will wait almost 200 years before your application is even considered solely because of where you were born--almost 200 years on a waiting list. Some people don't even live that long. Our country isn't much older than that. Yet that is the amount of time they would have to wait based solely on the basis of the country in which they were born. If you are born anywhere else--anywhere else other than China; say in Ghana, Sweden, Indonesia--basically any other country other than India, your application will be considered immediately. This sort of discrimination is simply inconsistent with the principles of an America-based immigration system and with our founding principles and the principles that unite us as Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H.R. 1044; further, that the Lee amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4901 | null | 1,117 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are living in some really unprecedented times. The economic impact of this global pandemic on our Nation, our people, and our communities has been nothing short of devastating. Within weeks of the start of this pandemic, we went from being one of the best economies that the world has ever seen to some of the deepest levels of unemployment we have ever seen. While the unemployment rate improves each month, countless Americans are still suffering from business closures, from layoffs, and from furloughs. Ultimately, the best economic stimulus we can offer in this hour of need is to foster opportunities for Americans to find meaningful work and to achieve economic independence. We have to ensure that our immigration system does not punitively disadvantage our own citizens from working in their chosen field, does not create unnecessary obstacles to achieving economic independence, and that it does not unnaturally depress wages. I echo President Trump's bold call to put America's interests first as we work toward economic recovery. During this economic crisis, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned entity, made the decision to furlough its American workers and replace them with contractors who rely on work-based immigrant labor. Many of these same outsourcing companies are able to conduct operations for far less money because they pay immigrant workers below market wages and require them to work, in some circumstances, under terrible conditions. It was never the intention of any employment-based visa program to crowd out American workers in this way or to allow for the exploitation of legal immigrant workers. I fully support President Trump in making that clear in his actions earlier this week. Let me be clear. This legislation, S. 386, Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, does not add a single green card or additional visa to the current numbers. No. It only lifts the per-country caps on applications for green cards for immigrants who are already here. So it doesn't add to the number; it just lifts this artificial, arbitrary per-country cap. In times of high unemployment, if we need to reform other work-based immigration programs that protect American workers, let's do it. If we need to end the optional practical training program to ease the burden on American graduates entering the economy, let's do it. If we need to reform the H-1B program and make significant reductions in the number of work-based immigrants who come into this country, let's talk about that. I support these reforms, and that is why I worked with Senators Grassley and Durbin, among so many others in this body, to add significant reforms to the H-1B program, to the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. This includes a reduction in the number of work-based visa holders that any one company may lawfully sponsor. This reform, included at Senator Durbin's request, is a good one, and it aims to protect not only American workers but immigrants as well by significantly curbing the system that allows for both the exploitation of visa holders and the depression of wages for all employees in a given sector. Its passage into law will increase the opportunity for Americans to compete for these positions. The bill also includes provisions strengthening the Department of Labor's ability to enforce and investigate claims that employers are providing less than fair wages and working conditions for immigrant workers, requiring employers to disclose more information regarding their H-1B hiring practices and ensuring that employers may not use other visas to circumvent the H-1B caps. We must put Americans first. These provisions seek to do just that. Unless we are willing to completely end the work-based visa programs, we have an obligation to ensure they are administered and allocated in accordance with the principles that we espouse as Americans. My goal in sponsoring this legislation many years ago--nearly a decade ago, in fact--was simply to bring some equity into this system. I have always been struck by the fact that the government has conditioned a benefit--in this case, a green card and a pathway to citizenship, given that this is a series of immigrant visa programs at issue--based solely on the applicants' country of origin. There may have been some legitimate reason many decades ago, in fact, for this. I almost can't think of what those legitimate reasons might have been. Regardless, this has led to a system that largely discriminates against green card applicants from one country--and I mean literally one country. This is inconsistent with our founding principles. This is not how we try to do things as Americans. And it is not right. Today, if you are a work-based immigrant from India entering into the EB-2 green card application process, you will wait almost 200 years before your application is even considered solely because of where you were born--almost 200 years on a waiting list. Some people don't even live that long. Our country isn't much older than that. Yet that is the amount of time they would have to wait based solely on the basis of the country in which they were born. If you are born anywhere else--anywhere else other than China; say in Ghana, Sweden, Indonesia--basically any other country other than India, your application will be considered immediately. This sort of discrimination is simply inconsistent with the principles of an America-based immigration system and with our founding principles and the principles that unite us as Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H.R. 1044; further, that the Lee amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4901 | null | 1,118 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are living in some really unprecedented times. The economic impact of this global pandemic on our Nation, our people, and our communities has been nothing short of devastating. Within weeks of the start of this pandemic, we went from being one of the best economies that the world has ever seen to some of the deepest levels of unemployment we have ever seen. While the unemployment rate improves each month, countless Americans are still suffering from business closures, from layoffs, and from furloughs. Ultimately, the best economic stimulus we can offer in this hour of need is to foster opportunities for Americans to find meaningful work and to achieve economic independence. We have to ensure that our immigration system does not punitively disadvantage our own citizens from working in their chosen field, does not create unnecessary obstacles to achieving economic independence, and that it does not unnaturally depress wages. I echo President Trump's bold call to put America's interests first as we work toward economic recovery. During this economic crisis, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned entity, made the decision to furlough its American workers and replace them with contractors who rely on work-based immigrant labor. Many of these same outsourcing companies are able to conduct operations for far less money because they pay immigrant workers below market wages and require them to work, in some circumstances, under terrible conditions. It was never the intention of any employment-based visa program to crowd out American workers in this way or to allow for the exploitation of legal immigrant workers. I fully support President Trump in making that clear in his actions earlier this week. Let me be clear. This legislation, S. 386, Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, does not add a single green card or additional visa to the current numbers. No. It only lifts the per-country caps on applications for green cards for immigrants who are already here. So it doesn't add to the number; it just lifts this artificial, arbitrary per-country cap. In times of high unemployment, if we need to reform other work-based immigration programs that protect American workers, let's do it. If we need to end the optional practical training program to ease the burden on American graduates entering the economy, let's do it. If we need to reform the H-1B program and make significant reductions in the number of work-based immigrants who come into this country, let's talk about that. I support these reforms, and that is why I worked with Senators Grassley and Durbin, among so many others in this body, to add significant reforms to the H-1B program, to the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. This includes a reduction in the number of work-based visa holders that any one company may lawfully sponsor. This reform, included at Senator Durbin's request, is a good one, and it aims to protect not only American workers but immigrants as well by significantly curbing the system that allows for both the exploitation of visa holders and the depression of wages for all employees in a given sector. Its passage into law will increase the opportunity for Americans to compete for these positions. The bill also includes provisions strengthening the Department of Labor's ability to enforce and investigate claims that employers are providing less than fair wages and working conditions for immigrant workers, requiring employers to disclose more information regarding their H-1B hiring practices and ensuring that employers may not use other visas to circumvent the H-1B caps. We must put Americans first. These provisions seek to do just that. Unless we are willing to completely end the work-based visa programs, we have an obligation to ensure they are administered and allocated in accordance with the principles that we espouse as Americans. My goal in sponsoring this legislation many years ago--nearly a decade ago, in fact--was simply to bring some equity into this system. I have always been struck by the fact that the government has conditioned a benefit--in this case, a green card and a pathway to citizenship, given that this is a series of immigrant visa programs at issue--based solely on the applicants' country of origin. There may have been some legitimate reason many decades ago, in fact, for this. I almost can't think of what those legitimate reasons might have been. Regardless, this has led to a system that largely discriminates against green card applicants from one country--and I mean literally one country. This is inconsistent with our founding principles. This is not how we try to do things as Americans. And it is not right. Today, if you are a work-based immigrant from India entering into the EB-2 green card application process, you will wait almost 200 years before your application is even considered solely because of where you were born--almost 200 years on a waiting list. Some people don't even live that long. Our country isn't much older than that. Yet that is the amount of time they would have to wait based solely on the basis of the country in which they were born. If you are born anywhere else--anywhere else other than China; say in Ghana, Sweden, Indonesia--basically any other country other than India, your application will be considered immediately. This sort of discrimination is simply inconsistent with the principles of an America-based immigration system and with our founding principles and the principles that unite us as Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H.R. 1044; further, that the Lee amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4901 | null | 1,119 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as our Nation's war against the coronavirus wages on, negotiations on the next relief package seem to remain at a standstill. The bolstered unemployment benefits provided by the CARES Act have expired. Principals and teachers--and parents, I might add--are preparing to begin the school year without adequate funding for the protective measures they need, and additional investments into vaccines and treatments are desperately needed. I believe the Senate should stay in session until we are able to pass another coronavirus relief bill, but Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer seem to have zero sense of urgency in delivering the support those in our country need, including their own constituents, and they have zero interest, apparently--at least so far--in a bipartisan compromise. Despite the less-than-enthusiastic interest from their own Members and a flatout veto threat from the White House, they continue to push the more than $3 trillion Heroes Act as a solution to the crisis. Remember, this is legislation that was so unpopular among Democrats that it barely managed to pass the House earlier this summer, and it includes extraneous items, like tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires who live in blue States and diversity studies for the marijuana industry. It doesn't take a policy expert to see that these portions of the bill have absolutely nothing to do with the crisis at hand, and they demonstrate how unserious Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House have been and, unfortunately, now joined by some of our colleagues here in the Senate--how unserious they are about actually solving this problem to the best of our ability. They even go so far as to call that particular piece of legislation, the Heroes Act, a messaging document. Well, that messaging document helps absolutely zero people. It is a wish list, a pipedream, and it is an effort to try to appease the most radical Members of the Democratic caucus. Though Speaker Pelosi says the title of this legislation is a tribute to our healthcare workers, it is really a cruel joke. The bill itself does nothing to protect them from one of the biggest threats lurking around the corner. We are already beginning to see evidence that the coronavirus pandemic is moving from hospitals to courtrooms, as lawyers have filed lawsuits against our essential healthcare workers and any institution that has kept its doors open throughout this crisis. This is something that has come up in my conversations with many of my constituents in Texas over the last several months--healthcare workers, educators, nonprofits, restaurant workers, child daycare centers, retailers--the list goes on and on. They are worried about the carpet-bombing of opportunistic litigation. After all, these are some of the very same people we have said must show up for work, must continue to provide essential goods and services to their communities during this crisis. Now they are worried that we are going to throw them under the bus and make them subject to lawsuits for doing the best they could under very difficult circumstances. Well, we can already see the commercials on TV or the billboards soliciting these lawsuits. The trial bar is prepared to file lawsuits against doctors, nurses, teachers, small business owners--anyone and everyone who might be able to pay a judgment or, more likely, who has an insurance policy. According to the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, nearly 4,000 claims have already been filed--more than 275 in Texas--but we are also talking about circumstances under which the statute of limitations is 2 years. So 2 years from the claimed incident, you could file a lawsuit. So this is just the tip of the iceberg. As our economy begins to reopen, so will the floodgates, and we need to take action now to prevent this tidal wave of litigation from wiping out the very workers, businesses, and institutions we have been fighting to keep afloat. Leader McConnell and I have introduced the SAFE TO WORK Act to address this issue and to prevent this trial lawyer bonanza from bringing even more harm to our country and to our economy. Unlike the unserious Heroes Act, this would give our healthcare workers exactly the kind of support they need, but I want to make clear what this legislation does and does not do. First, it is not a blanket shield from liability. It will not prevent bad actors from being held accountable. It will not prevent people from filing coronavirus lawsuits, and it will not give anyone a ``get out of jail free'' card. In cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, where applicable public health guidelines were ignored, the person bringing the claim has every right to sue and to be made whole, and we are not suggesting any change to that. What we do need to do, though, is put some safeguards in place to help those who were operating in good faith under uncertain circumstances, under sometimes changing guidance and direction, even though they were trying to follow all of the relevant guidelines. That includes protections for nonprofits that have gone above and beyond to support their communities, as the demand for their services has skyrocketed. It includes the schools, the colleges, the universities that are preparing to take every conceivable precaution to keep students and teachers safe this fall. It includes the hospitals that have been on the frontlines and have fought significant headwinds to keep their staff, their patients, and their communities safe. And, of course, it includes protections for our incredible healthcare workers who have been on the frontlines of this crisis for months. Amid rapidly changing guidelines, staffing shortages, and scarce supplies of personal protective equipment, they continued to adapt and deliver the best possible care to their patients. Just to give you one example of how rapidly the guidelines are changing, in March, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission provided a manual to nursing homes with guidance on managing and preventing a COVID-19 outbreak. The manual was 28 pages long. Since then, it has nearly tripled in length. As we have learned more about this virus, guidelines have evolved, as you would hope they would, to ensure that our healthcare workers know the most effective ways to quarantine, test, and treat patients. That is an unequivocally good thing. It is strengthening our response, it is helping us slow the spread of the virus, and it is savings lives. But it has also created a host of challenges for the healthcare workers who are the very ones complying with these rapidly changing guidelines, doing the best they can under difficult circumstances I learned about an elderly patient who arrived at a hospital emergency room during the early stages of the pandemic with a fever but no other COVID-19 symptoms. At that point, testing supplies were constrained, and the applicable CDC protocol was to limit testing only to patients who met the strict criteria, who had symptoms. And with only a fever, this patient did not meet those criteria so he was not tested. The healthcare workers identified an infection site that could have been causing his fever, so they treated him and discharged him with instructions to return if his condition worsened. Several days later, unfortunately, his condition did worsen, and he went to a different hospital where he was given a COVID-19 test. The result came back positive, and ultimately he was admitted to the intensive care unit. Then, several days later, he tragically passed away from coronavirus-related symptoms. For the man's family, I know this raises questions of how things might have been different today if he had been tested on that initial visit in the emergency room. They have said they may file a lawsuit against the physician and the hospital for not performing a test and admitting the man to the hospital on the first visit. But the doctors there were simply following the best advice they had at the time and were constrained by the number of tests available--only to test patients when they had symptoms of the virus and, unfortunately, this man's symptoms did not qualify. If the doctor and the hospital did the best they could following those guidelines, they should not be subjected to these types of litigation. Now, as I have said, the legislation would not provide blanket immunity. Nobody is arguing for that, but we do need clear guardrails to ensure that the dedicated healthcare workers and other essential workers who were acting in good faith will not be drained dry by the trial bar. This legislation sets a willful misconduct or gross negligence standard to ensure that only bona fide, legitimate claims are brought against these healthcare workers. The patients subjected to that type of treatment have every right to sue and to be made whole, and this will preserve that basic right. But it will also make sure that the hard-working doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians, and other medical professionals who have acted in good faith are not pulled into litigation that could send them into bankruptcy. Over the past several months, our healthcare workers have navigated the dark, treacherous, and rapidly changing waters of this storm to save as many lives as possible. I should point out that I think about 30 States have, at the State level, provided the kind of protection to healthcare workers I am talking about. So we need to throw them a lifeline, not feed them to the sharks. Instead of naming a bill in honor of our healthcare heroes that does absolutely nothing to help them, as the House has done, let's pass a bill that will honor them. If our friends across the aisle want to help our healthcare workers and thank them for their immeasurable sacrifices they have made, liability protection would do exactly that. So I hope our colleagues are prepared to acknowledge the widely known truth--that the Heroes Act is an unserious piece of legislation that has zero chance of becoming law. It is time to stop playing games and get serious about what our country needs at this critical moment. As negotiations on the next relief package continue, I would ask our colleagues to set aside the completely unrelated priorities in the Heroes Act and focus on the changes that need to be made to keep our healthcare and other essential workers safe but also to protect them from frivolous litigation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4903 | null | 1,120 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to speak about a topic that is very close to my heart. As the son of Cuban refugees and as a first-generation American, the struggles of immigrant families are not something I read about in books or watched on television. I lived them. I saw with my own eyes what it meant to grow up in an immigrant family in a low-income tenement in Union City, NJ. My mother worked tirelessly as a seamstress and sacrificed everything to make sure that my siblings and I could have a better life and a better future, because that is the very essence of what we call the American dream. It is about ensuring that the next generation has it better than we do and that our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren have greater opportunities than we do to realize their full potential. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, or when your ancestors came to this country. We are a nation built by immigrants. Every single member of this great and storied body is a descendant of those who came to America, seeking better lives for themselves and their loved ones. The President is a second-generation American. His grandfather, Friedrich Trump, came here from Germany. Our First Lady is herself an immigrant. Yet this administration and President Trump have gone to painstaking lengths to deny, erase, and ignore the contributions of immigrants to American life and culture, innovation and ingenuity, economy and prosperity. They have worked overtime to deny the very fact that the immigrant story is America's story. As an old saying in Spanish goes, (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows): ``There is nothing worse than not wanting to see what is right in front of you.'' Donald Trump's endless lies and attacks on immigrants started long before he descended down that escalator in Trump Tower to announce his run for the Presidency. They haven't stopped since. The President recently took another aggressive step in his war to erase immigrants from the portrait of America when he issued an unconstitutional edict to exclude our undocumented brothers and sisters from being counted in the 2020 census for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. His message was loud and clear to immigrant communities across the country: You are not welcome here. You don't belong here. You don't count. His goal is to instill fear in immigrant communities, and that is shameful and un-American. Let's be clear. The U.S. Constitution is explicit on this particular point. Article I, section 2 clearly reads: ``Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons.'' The census requires an accurate count of all persons living in the country. It does not distinguish between status or citizenship. It could have read that it requires an account of all citizens of the then-United States, of the Union. It could have read that it is an account of all citizens and all legal permanent residents. It didn't read that either. It specifically recognized this because, as the Union was developing, there were people from different walks of life in the United States, and it purposely understood that not all of them would necessarily be citizens at the time of accounting, but who was in America at any given time from the creation of the Constitution was important--all persons. My friends, we have been sent here to serve all of our constituents in our home States, no matter the color of their skin, their gender, or their legal status. The history of America is intertwined with immigrant stories. In every State of our Union, immigrants work in every industry and contribute in all facets of American life--the most important parts of our lives. They work in our fields, picking our fruits and vegetables. They are checkers at grocery stores and construction workers, building our bridges and homes. They educate our children in our schools. They treat the sick in our hospitals as nurses, doctors, and mental health professionals. They wear the uniform and carry our flag in the U.S. armed services. In fact, during this pandemic, hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, have put their lives on the line to serve as essential frontline workers and to keep businesses open, despite the administration actively seeking to deport them. Like many American citizens, they are risking their lives every day, while being disproportionately affected by COVID-19, to provide others with the services they need and to protect the health and safety of our fellow Americans. All the while, they are facing disproportionate infection and death rates from this horrible disease. They are the invisible heroes of this pandemic. They are the ones who make it possible for us to receive the essential goods and services so that we can stay home, which is what we are told by the Nation's public health officials. But the message from the President to these essential workers, who perform backbreaking work in our fields, care for our children, or treat you at the hospital is: You are not worthy. I ask every single one of my colleagues if, God forbid, you were infected with COVID-19, would you really care about the citizenship status of the doctor or nurse treating you? Would you ask for his or her legal papers before getting help? Would any of you refuse to eat fruit or vegetables in your homes picked by the calloused hands of an undocumented immigrant sweating in our fields? Would you rather not have a highway built in your State because the workers have a native language other than English? Now, many of you would tell me that is nonsense. But yet, the Trump Presidency has been marked by deafening silence in the face of this inflammatory, xenophobic, immoral campaign against immigrants. Just take the example of TPS and DACA beneficiaries. As my home State of New Jersey struggled in the early days of the pandemic--until recently, we had the second-most cases of COVID-19--temporary protective status holders like Madelia Cartagena in Newark and Dreamers like Daysi from Monmouth County rose to the challenge presented by the pandemic. As more than 131,000 temporary protective status holders across the Nation, and 7,500 in New Jersey alone, Madelia was considered an essential worker as the company she has worked for in the last 17 years had to respond to the increasing demand for sanitizer dispensers. For Daysi, the fact that she was brought to the United States from Central America at just 9 years old meant nothing to the patients whose lives she was helping to save. What mattered is that she showed up when she was needed, and that she did so despite the lingering threat that DACA, or deferred action for children arrivals, would be abruptly terminated, and with it her ability to remain in this country. She showed up every day, helping to save lives. Put simply, TPS holders like Madelia and DACA beneficiaries like Daysi help us heal and will also help our economy recover. They represent among the best of America. To give you some context, when I say they will help our economy recover, Dreamers bring in a net $3.4 billion annually to the U.S. Treasury and generate $42 billion in gross domestic product each year--Dreamers. Yet the administration has fought tooth and nail to send Dreamers packing, despite the American flag being the only one they have ever pledged allegiance to and the national anthem being the only national anthem they have ever sung. Even after the Supreme Court's recent ruling--the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land--that the termination of DACA was unlawful, the administration has openly defied the Supreme Court's order by not reopening the full DACA Program. These Dreamers are battling the coronavirus and the Trump administration. Polls show that even a majority of Trump voters want to protect Dreamers from deportation, and wide swaths of registered voters support Dreamers, regardless of the voter's gender, education, income, ethnicity, religion, or ideology. That includes 68 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of conservatives, and 64 percent of those who approve of the job the President is doing. But instead of accepting the Supreme Court's decision and acknowledging the enormous contributions of Dreamers, this administration is planning new efforts to end DACA. It is no secret. They indicate as much in the latest Department of Homeland Security memo. And let's be honest. If it is not outright termination they seek, the administration will treat the protection of Dreamers as a bargaining chip in order to undo our legal immigration system. They want to cut legal family immigration in exchange for what they call a merit-based immigration system. That would be pretty shameful and offensive because there are many who are here who would never be here under a merit-based system. This administration and my Republican colleagues need to open their eyes and realize how we are treating immigrants in this country. We need them to do it now, in this moment, as we are pleading with our colleagues to do what is right, to give families a fighting chance to beat the virus and put the economy back on track. We can't turn a blind eye to the fact that immigrant families will likely be excluded from help desperately needed during this pandemic in the next COVID-19 package. So far, undocumented immigrants who pay their taxes and selflessly risk their lives as essential workers to save others have been deliberately excluded from the Federal pandemic assistance Congress has provided. Virtually all immigrants who use an individual taxpayer identification number--or as we call it, an ITIN--to file their Federal taxes under U.S. law, which is totally permissible, and their U.S. citizen spouses--U.S. citizen spouses--and children were left out from any economic impact payments in the CARES Act. In other words, we denied American citizens and their American citizen children badly needed assistance as a punishment--as a punishment--for being married to an undocumented immigrant or belonging to a mixed-status family during this economic emergency I grew up believing that an American citizen is an American citizen--is an American citizen, regardless of whom I marry, regardless of whether my children are the offspring of one parent who is an American citizen and another one who is not. Thousands of American citizens were denied $1,200 individual stimulus checks to which other American citizens were entitled to just because of who they love. American citizen children were denied $500 in assistance to which other American citizen children were entitled. It is wrong. Are there two classes of American children in this country now? Are there two classes of American citizens now? As we consider the next COVID-19 relief package, Congress has to fix this injustice. If you work hard, follow the rules, and pay your taxes, you deserve tax relief, regardless of how you filed. At the very least, if you are an American citizen living in a mixed-status family or an American child who is the offspring of a mixed-status family, you should not be denied the cash benefit you are rightfully entitled to. It is just that simple. It is justice. It is what is right. In the face of this tremendous public health crisis, we should not let the insidious, cruel, and relentless scapegoating of immigrants prevent us from providing much needed relief to the very same families and workers who are helping us survive. All families deserve to be treated with dignity. It is the humane thing to do. But that is not all. As we expanded access to free COVID-19 testing, undocumented immigrants were left behind. Now, that makes no sense. The coronavirus doesn't check your status before it infects you. An undocumented immigrant living in America with COVID-19 is no less a threat to become a seriously ill individual or spread the virus than an American citizen who has been infected. The virus does not discriminate on race, gender, ethnicity, borders, or legal status. As a public health proposition, you want everybody to be tested. Given the pandemic's disproportionate impact on low-income and communities of color and the fact that those communities of color are serving in essential industries, I would argue that they are more likely to be infected. What good is it to any one of us if someone, regardless of who or where they are, is walking around with an undiagnosed case of COVID-19 because they weren't eligible for a test? That person can unwittingly infect their relatives, their neighbors, and their coworkers. If we ever want to see our economy and lives return to some semblance of normal, there must be access to free COVID-19 testing, treatment, and vaccines for everyone living in the United States--everyone living in the United States, and that includes regardless of immigration status. America has to do better to acknowledge the hard work, sacrifice, and contribution of immigrants. Sadly, these past 4 years have seen a rise in hate crimes and hateful rhetoric targeting immigrants. Led by the President, immigrants are continuously scapegoated for every problem. One of my Senate colleagues even suggested recently that Hispanics were to blame for the rise in COVID cases across our own country, instead of the epic failure of the administration to develop and implement a national pandemic response plan or one that includes culturally competent outreach to minority-majority communities. As elected officials and leaders in our communities, we have a moral responsibility to rise above the immigrant fearmongering and the President's hateful rhetoric to reunite our country. Not only must we include immigrant families in the upcoming reliefpackage, but to truly address these injustices, we must reform our immigration laws once and for all. We have to come together as we did before here in the Senate--I was part of that Gang of 8--to restart these long overdue discussions and find a path forward to achieving real immigration reform. I have always believed and still believe that reforming our immigration laws is the civil rights issue of this community and of this time. It is time to treat immigrants fairly and to recognize their hard work and contributions to this Nation--immigrants like my mother, Evangelina, who came here with nothing but the conviction that everything in America was possible. She refused to let not speaking English or her modest wages as a seamstress stop her from giving us the best life she could. And here I am, one of 100 U.S. Senators, in a country of over 320 million people. I am the embodiment of that American dream, and my story is no less meaningful than that of any other immigrant coming to this country or in this country to build a better future for their family and this Nation. That is our past; that is our history; that is our present; and it will be our future. It is past time that due acknowledgment and respect be given. It is now time for action. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MENENDEZ | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4911 | null | 1,121 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to speak about a topic that is very close to my heart. As the son of Cuban refugees and as a first-generation American, the struggles of immigrant families are not something I read about in books or watched on television. I lived them. I saw with my own eyes what it meant to grow up in an immigrant family in a low-income tenement in Union City, NJ. My mother worked tirelessly as a seamstress and sacrificed everything to make sure that my siblings and I could have a better life and a better future, because that is the very essence of what we call the American dream. It is about ensuring that the next generation has it better than we do and that our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren have greater opportunities than we do to realize their full potential. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, or when your ancestors came to this country. We are a nation built by immigrants. Every single member of this great and storied body is a descendant of those who came to America, seeking better lives for themselves and their loved ones. The President is a second-generation American. His grandfather, Friedrich Trump, came here from Germany. Our First Lady is herself an immigrant. Yet this administration and President Trump have gone to painstaking lengths to deny, erase, and ignore the contributions of immigrants to American life and culture, innovation and ingenuity, economy and prosperity. They have worked overtime to deny the very fact that the immigrant story is America's story. As an old saying in Spanish goes, (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows): ``There is nothing worse than not wanting to see what is right in front of you.'' Donald Trump's endless lies and attacks on immigrants started long before he descended down that escalator in Trump Tower to announce his run for the Presidency. They haven't stopped since. The President recently took another aggressive step in his war to erase immigrants from the portrait of America when he issued an unconstitutional edict to exclude our undocumented brothers and sisters from being counted in the 2020 census for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. His message was loud and clear to immigrant communities across the country: You are not welcome here. You don't belong here. You don't count. His goal is to instill fear in immigrant communities, and that is shameful and un-American. Let's be clear. The U.S. Constitution is explicit on this particular point. Article I, section 2 clearly reads: ``Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons.'' The census requires an accurate count of all persons living in the country. It does not distinguish between status or citizenship. It could have read that it requires an account of all citizens of the then-United States, of the Union. It could have read that it is an account of all citizens and all legal permanent residents. It didn't read that either. It specifically recognized this because, as the Union was developing, there were people from different walks of life in the United States, and it purposely understood that not all of them would necessarily be citizens at the time of accounting, but who was in America at any given time from the creation of the Constitution was important--all persons. My friends, we have been sent here to serve all of our constituents in our home States, no matter the color of their skin, their gender, or their legal status. The history of America is intertwined with immigrant stories. In every State of our Union, immigrants work in every industry and contribute in all facets of American life--the most important parts of our lives. They work in our fields, picking our fruits and vegetables. They are checkers at grocery stores and construction workers, building our bridges and homes. They educate our children in our schools. They treat the sick in our hospitals as nurses, doctors, and mental health professionals. They wear the uniform and carry our flag in the U.S. armed services. In fact, during this pandemic, hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, have put their lives on the line to serve as essential frontline workers and to keep businesses open, despite the administration actively seeking to deport them. Like many American citizens, they are risking their lives every day, while being disproportionately affected by COVID-19, to provide others with the services they need and to protect the health and safety of our fellow Americans. All the while, they are facing disproportionate infection and death rates from this horrible disease. They are the invisible heroes of this pandemic. They are the ones who make it possible for us to receive the essential goods and services so that we can stay home, which is what we are told by the Nation's public health officials. But the message from the President to these essential workers, who perform backbreaking work in our fields, care for our children, or treat you at the hospital is: You are not worthy. I ask every single one of my colleagues if, God forbid, you were infected with COVID-19, would you really care about the citizenship status of the doctor or nurse treating you? Would you ask for his or her legal papers before getting help? Would any of you refuse to eat fruit or vegetables in your homes picked by the calloused hands of an undocumented immigrant sweating in our fields? Would you rather not have a highway built in your State because the workers have a native language other than English? Now, many of you would tell me that is nonsense. But yet, the Trump Presidency has been marked by deafening silence in the face of this inflammatory, xenophobic, immoral campaign against immigrants. Just take the example of TPS and DACA beneficiaries. As my home State of New Jersey struggled in the early days of the pandemic--until recently, we had the second-most cases of COVID-19--temporary protective status holders like Madelia Cartagena in Newark and Dreamers like Daysi from Monmouth County rose to the challenge presented by the pandemic. As more than 131,000 temporary protective status holders across the Nation, and 7,500 in New Jersey alone, Madelia was considered an essential worker as the company she has worked for in the last 17 years had to respond to the increasing demand for sanitizer dispensers. For Daysi, the fact that she was brought to the United States from Central America at just 9 years old meant nothing to the patients whose lives she was helping to save. What mattered is that she showed up when she was needed, and that she did so despite the lingering threat that DACA, or deferred action for children arrivals, would be abruptly terminated, and with it her ability to remain in this country. She showed up every day, helping to save lives. Put simply, TPS holders like Madelia and DACA beneficiaries like Daysi help us heal and will also help our economy recover. They represent among the best of America. To give you some context, when I say they will help our economy recover, Dreamers bring in a net $3.4 billion annually to the U.S. Treasury and generate $42 billion in gross domestic product each year--Dreamers. Yet the administration has fought tooth and nail to send Dreamers packing, despite the American flag being the only one they have ever pledged allegiance to and the national anthem being the only national anthem they have ever sung. Even after the Supreme Court's recent ruling--the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land--that the termination of DACA was unlawful, the administration has openly defied the Supreme Court's order by not reopening the full DACA Program. These Dreamers are battling the coronavirus and the Trump administration. Polls show that even a majority of Trump voters want to protect Dreamers from deportation, and wide swaths of registered voters support Dreamers, regardless of the voter's gender, education, income, ethnicity, religion, or ideology. That includes 68 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of conservatives, and 64 percent of those who approve of the job the President is doing. But instead of accepting the Supreme Court's decision and acknowledging the enormous contributions of Dreamers, this administration is planning new efforts to end DACA. It is no secret. They indicate as much in the latest Department of Homeland Security memo. And let's be honest. If it is not outright termination they seek, the administration will treat the protection of Dreamers as a bargaining chip in order to undo our legal immigration system. They want to cut legal family immigration in exchange for what they call a merit-based immigration system. That would be pretty shameful and offensive because there are many who are here who would never be here under a merit-based system. This administration and my Republican colleagues need to open their eyes and realize how we are treating immigrants in this country. We need them to do it now, in this moment, as we are pleading with our colleagues to do what is right, to give families a fighting chance to beat the virus and put the economy back on track. We can't turn a blind eye to the fact that immigrant families will likely be excluded from help desperately needed during this pandemic in the next COVID-19 package. So far, undocumented immigrants who pay their taxes and selflessly risk their lives as essential workers to save others have been deliberately excluded from the Federal pandemic assistance Congress has provided. Virtually all immigrants who use an individual taxpayer identification number--or as we call it, an ITIN--to file their Federal taxes under U.S. law, which is totally permissible, and their U.S. citizen spouses--U.S. citizen spouses--and children were left out from any economic impact payments in the CARES Act. In other words, we denied American citizens and their American citizen children badly needed assistance as a punishment--as a punishment--for being married to an undocumented immigrant or belonging to a mixed-status family during this economic emergency I grew up believing that an American citizen is an American citizen--is an American citizen, regardless of whom I marry, regardless of whether my children are the offspring of one parent who is an American citizen and another one who is not. Thousands of American citizens were denied $1,200 individual stimulus checks to which other American citizens were entitled to just because of who they love. American citizen children were denied $500 in assistance to which other American citizen children were entitled. It is wrong. Are there two classes of American children in this country now? Are there two classes of American citizens now? As we consider the next COVID-19 relief package, Congress has to fix this injustice. If you work hard, follow the rules, and pay your taxes, you deserve tax relief, regardless of how you filed. At the very least, if you are an American citizen living in a mixed-status family or an American child who is the offspring of a mixed-status family, you should not be denied the cash benefit you are rightfully entitled to. It is just that simple. It is justice. It is what is right. In the face of this tremendous public health crisis, we should not let the insidious, cruel, and relentless scapegoating of immigrants prevent us from providing much needed relief to the very same families and workers who are helping us survive. All families deserve to be treated with dignity. It is the humane thing to do. But that is not all. As we expanded access to free COVID-19 testing, undocumented immigrants were left behind. Now, that makes no sense. The coronavirus doesn't check your status before it infects you. An undocumented immigrant living in America with COVID-19 is no less a threat to become a seriously ill individual or spread the virus than an American citizen who has been infected. The virus does not discriminate on race, gender, ethnicity, borders, or legal status. As a public health proposition, you want everybody to be tested. Given the pandemic's disproportionate impact on low-income and communities of color and the fact that those communities of color are serving in essential industries, I would argue that they are more likely to be infected. What good is it to any one of us if someone, regardless of who or where they are, is walking around with an undiagnosed case of COVID-19 because they weren't eligible for a test? That person can unwittingly infect their relatives, their neighbors, and their coworkers. If we ever want to see our economy and lives return to some semblance of normal, there must be access to free COVID-19 testing, treatment, and vaccines for everyone living in the United States--everyone living in the United States, and that includes regardless of immigration status. America has to do better to acknowledge the hard work, sacrifice, and contribution of immigrants. Sadly, these past 4 years have seen a rise in hate crimes and hateful rhetoric targeting immigrants. Led by the President, immigrants are continuously scapegoated for every problem. One of my Senate colleagues even suggested recently that Hispanics were to blame for the rise in COVID cases across our own country, instead of the epic failure of the administration to develop and implement a national pandemic response plan or one that includes culturally competent outreach to minority-majority communities. As elected officials and leaders in our communities, we have a moral responsibility to rise above the immigrant fearmongering and the President's hateful rhetoric to reunite our country. Not only must we include immigrant families in the upcoming reliefpackage, but to truly address these injustices, we must reform our immigration laws once and for all. We have to come together as we did before here in the Senate--I was part of that Gang of 8--to restart these long overdue discussions and find a path forward to achieving real immigration reform. I have always believed and still believe that reforming our immigration laws is the civil rights issue of this community and of this time. It is time to treat immigrants fairly and to recognize their hard work and contributions to this Nation--immigrants like my mother, Evangelina, who came here with nothing but the conviction that everything in America was possible. She refused to let not speaking English or her modest wages as a seamstress stop her from giving us the best life she could. And here I am, one of 100 U.S. Senators, in a country of over 320 million people. I am the embodiment of that American dream, and my story is no less meaningful than that of any other immigrant coming to this country or in this country to build a better future for their family and this Nation. That is our past; that is our history; that is our present; and it will be our future. It is past time that due acknowledgment and respect be given. It is now time for action. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MENENDEZ | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4911 | null | 1,122 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to speak about a topic that is very close to my heart. As the son of Cuban refugees and as a first-generation American, the struggles of immigrant families are not something I read about in books or watched on television. I lived them. I saw with my own eyes what it meant to grow up in an immigrant family in a low-income tenement in Union City, NJ. My mother worked tirelessly as a seamstress and sacrificed everything to make sure that my siblings and I could have a better life and a better future, because that is the very essence of what we call the American dream. It is about ensuring that the next generation has it better than we do and that our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren have greater opportunities than we do to realize their full potential. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, or when your ancestors came to this country. We are a nation built by immigrants. Every single member of this great and storied body is a descendant of those who came to America, seeking better lives for themselves and their loved ones. The President is a second-generation American. His grandfather, Friedrich Trump, came here from Germany. Our First Lady is herself an immigrant. Yet this administration and President Trump have gone to painstaking lengths to deny, erase, and ignore the contributions of immigrants to American life and culture, innovation and ingenuity, economy and prosperity. They have worked overtime to deny the very fact that the immigrant story is America's story. As an old saying in Spanish goes, (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows): ``There is nothing worse than not wanting to see what is right in front of you.'' Donald Trump's endless lies and attacks on immigrants started long before he descended down that escalator in Trump Tower to announce his run for the Presidency. They haven't stopped since. The President recently took another aggressive step in his war to erase immigrants from the portrait of America when he issued an unconstitutional edict to exclude our undocumented brothers and sisters from being counted in the 2020 census for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. His message was loud and clear to immigrant communities across the country: You are not welcome here. You don't belong here. You don't count. His goal is to instill fear in immigrant communities, and that is shameful and un-American. Let's be clear. The U.S. Constitution is explicit on this particular point. Article I, section 2 clearly reads: ``Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons.'' The census requires an accurate count of all persons living in the country. It does not distinguish between status or citizenship. It could have read that it requires an account of all citizens of the then-United States, of the Union. It could have read that it is an account of all citizens and all legal permanent residents. It didn't read that either. It specifically recognized this because, as the Union was developing, there were people from different walks of life in the United States, and it purposely understood that not all of them would necessarily be citizens at the time of accounting, but who was in America at any given time from the creation of the Constitution was important--all persons. My friends, we have been sent here to serve all of our constituents in our home States, no matter the color of their skin, their gender, or their legal status. The history of America is intertwined with immigrant stories. In every State of our Union, immigrants work in every industry and contribute in all facets of American life--the most important parts of our lives. They work in our fields, picking our fruits and vegetables. They are checkers at grocery stores and construction workers, building our bridges and homes. They educate our children in our schools. They treat the sick in our hospitals as nurses, doctors, and mental health professionals. They wear the uniform and carry our flag in the U.S. armed services. In fact, during this pandemic, hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, have put their lives on the line to serve as essential frontline workers and to keep businesses open, despite the administration actively seeking to deport them. Like many American citizens, they are risking their lives every day, while being disproportionately affected by COVID-19, to provide others with the services they need and to protect the health and safety of our fellow Americans. All the while, they are facing disproportionate infection and death rates from this horrible disease. They are the invisible heroes of this pandemic. They are the ones who make it possible for us to receive the essential goods and services so that we can stay home, which is what we are told by the Nation's public health officials. But the message from the President to these essential workers, who perform backbreaking work in our fields, care for our children, or treat you at the hospital is: You are not worthy. I ask every single one of my colleagues if, God forbid, you were infected with COVID-19, would you really care about the citizenship status of the doctor or nurse treating you? Would you ask for his or her legal papers before getting help? Would any of you refuse to eat fruit or vegetables in your homes picked by the calloused hands of an undocumented immigrant sweating in our fields? Would you rather not have a highway built in your State because the workers have a native language other than English? Now, many of you would tell me that is nonsense. But yet, the Trump Presidency has been marked by deafening silence in the face of this inflammatory, xenophobic, immoral campaign against immigrants. Just take the example of TPS and DACA beneficiaries. As my home State of New Jersey struggled in the early days of the pandemic--until recently, we had the second-most cases of COVID-19--temporary protective status holders like Madelia Cartagena in Newark and Dreamers like Daysi from Monmouth County rose to the challenge presented by the pandemic. As more than 131,000 temporary protective status holders across the Nation, and 7,500 in New Jersey alone, Madelia was considered an essential worker as the company she has worked for in the last 17 years had to respond to the increasing demand for sanitizer dispensers. For Daysi, the fact that she was brought to the United States from Central America at just 9 years old meant nothing to the patients whose lives she was helping to save. What mattered is that she showed up when she was needed, and that she did so despite the lingering threat that DACA, or deferred action for children arrivals, would be abruptly terminated, and with it her ability to remain in this country. She showed up every day, helping to save lives. Put simply, TPS holders like Madelia and DACA beneficiaries like Daysi help us heal and will also help our economy recover. They represent among the best of America. To give you some context, when I say they will help our economy recover, Dreamers bring in a net $3.4 billion annually to the U.S. Treasury and generate $42 billion in gross domestic product each year--Dreamers. Yet the administration has fought tooth and nail to send Dreamers packing, despite the American flag being the only one they have ever pledged allegiance to and the national anthem being the only national anthem they have ever sung. Even after the Supreme Court's recent ruling--the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land--that the termination of DACA was unlawful, the administration has openly defied the Supreme Court's order by not reopening the full DACA Program. These Dreamers are battling the coronavirus and the Trump administration. Polls show that even a majority of Trump voters want to protect Dreamers from deportation, and wide swaths of registered voters support Dreamers, regardless of the voter's gender, education, income, ethnicity, religion, or ideology. That includes 68 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of conservatives, and 64 percent of those who approve of the job the President is doing. But instead of accepting the Supreme Court's decision and acknowledging the enormous contributions of Dreamers, this administration is planning new efforts to end DACA. It is no secret. They indicate as much in the latest Department of Homeland Security memo. And let's be honest. If it is not outright termination they seek, the administration will treat the protection of Dreamers as a bargaining chip in order to undo our legal immigration system. They want to cut legal family immigration in exchange for what they call a merit-based immigration system. That would be pretty shameful and offensive because there are many who are here who would never be here under a merit-based system. This administration and my Republican colleagues need to open their eyes and realize how we are treating immigrants in this country. We need them to do it now, in this moment, as we are pleading with our colleagues to do what is right, to give families a fighting chance to beat the virus and put the economy back on track. We can't turn a blind eye to the fact that immigrant families will likely be excluded from help desperately needed during this pandemic in the next COVID-19 package. So far, undocumented immigrants who pay their taxes and selflessly risk their lives as essential workers to save others have been deliberately excluded from the Federal pandemic assistance Congress has provided. Virtually all immigrants who use an individual taxpayer identification number--or as we call it, an ITIN--to file their Federal taxes under U.S. law, which is totally permissible, and their U.S. citizen spouses--U.S. citizen spouses--and children were left out from any economic impact payments in the CARES Act. In other words, we denied American citizens and their American citizen children badly needed assistance as a punishment--as a punishment--for being married to an undocumented immigrant or belonging to a mixed-status family during this economic emergency I grew up believing that an American citizen is an American citizen--is an American citizen, regardless of whom I marry, regardless of whether my children are the offspring of one parent who is an American citizen and another one who is not. Thousands of American citizens were denied $1,200 individual stimulus checks to which other American citizens were entitled to just because of who they love. American citizen children were denied $500 in assistance to which other American citizen children were entitled. It is wrong. Are there two classes of American children in this country now? Are there two classes of American citizens now? As we consider the next COVID-19 relief package, Congress has to fix this injustice. If you work hard, follow the rules, and pay your taxes, you deserve tax relief, regardless of how you filed. At the very least, if you are an American citizen living in a mixed-status family or an American child who is the offspring of a mixed-status family, you should not be denied the cash benefit you are rightfully entitled to. It is just that simple. It is justice. It is what is right. In the face of this tremendous public health crisis, we should not let the insidious, cruel, and relentless scapegoating of immigrants prevent us from providing much needed relief to the very same families and workers who are helping us survive. All families deserve to be treated with dignity. It is the humane thing to do. But that is not all. As we expanded access to free COVID-19 testing, undocumented immigrants were left behind. Now, that makes no sense. The coronavirus doesn't check your status before it infects you. An undocumented immigrant living in America with COVID-19 is no less a threat to become a seriously ill individual or spread the virus than an American citizen who has been infected. The virus does not discriminate on race, gender, ethnicity, borders, or legal status. As a public health proposition, you want everybody to be tested. Given the pandemic's disproportionate impact on low-income and communities of color and the fact that those communities of color are serving in essential industries, I would argue that they are more likely to be infected. What good is it to any one of us if someone, regardless of who or where they are, is walking around with an undiagnosed case of COVID-19 because they weren't eligible for a test? That person can unwittingly infect their relatives, their neighbors, and their coworkers. If we ever want to see our economy and lives return to some semblance of normal, there must be access to free COVID-19 testing, treatment, and vaccines for everyone living in the United States--everyone living in the United States, and that includes regardless of immigration status. America has to do better to acknowledge the hard work, sacrifice, and contribution of immigrants. Sadly, these past 4 years have seen a rise in hate crimes and hateful rhetoric targeting immigrants. Led by the President, immigrants are continuously scapegoated for every problem. One of my Senate colleagues even suggested recently that Hispanics were to blame for the rise in COVID cases across our own country, instead of the epic failure of the administration to develop and implement a national pandemic response plan or one that includes culturally competent outreach to minority-majority communities. As elected officials and leaders in our communities, we have a moral responsibility to rise above the immigrant fearmongering and the President's hateful rhetoric to reunite our country. Not only must we include immigrant families in the upcoming reliefpackage, but to truly address these injustices, we must reform our immigration laws once and for all. We have to come together as we did before here in the Senate--I was part of that Gang of 8--to restart these long overdue discussions and find a path forward to achieving real immigration reform. I have always believed and still believe that reforming our immigration laws is the civil rights issue of this community and of this time. It is time to treat immigrants fairly and to recognize their hard work and contributions to this Nation--immigrants like my mother, Evangelina, who came here with nothing but the conviction that everything in America was possible. She refused to let not speaking English or her modest wages as a seamstress stop her from giving us the best life she could. And here I am, one of 100 U.S. Senators, in a country of over 320 million people. I am the embodiment of that American dream, and my story is no less meaningful than that of any other immigrant coming to this country or in this country to build a better future for their family and this Nation. That is our past; that is our history; that is our present; and it will be our future. It is past time that due acknowledgment and respect be given. It is now time for action. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MENENDEZ | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4911 | null | 1,123 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,124 |
formal | food stamps | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,125 |
formal | food stamp | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,126 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,127 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,128 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,129 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,130 |
formal | working class | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, this country faces at this moment an extraordinary set of crises--in fact, crises that are unprecedented in the history of our country. We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and, sad to say, this Senate has done nothing to address that crisis over the last 2\1/2\ months. Over the past 4 months, the coronavirus has infected nearly 5 million Americans and caused 160,000 deaths, and the Senate is doing nothing. Incredibly--and this is incredible--more Americans have been killed by the coronavirus than by the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, 9/11, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war combined, and the Senate is still not acting. We are in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Senate is doing nothing. Since March, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. Last week, the Senate allowed a $600-a-week increase in their unemployment benefits to expire. Over half of the American people have seen a loss in their income. Yet the Senate continues to do nothing. Forty million Americans--an unbelievable number--40 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes while the Senate has allowed a moratorium on evictions to expire. This is no great shock. Everybody knew this would happen. Yet the Republican leadership here has allowed that moratorium to expire. Twenty-six million Americans cannot afford food to feed their families, and those Americans are lining up at emergency food banks in record numbers, the vast majority of whom have never been to an emergency food bank in their lives, and the Senate is doing nothing. A recordbreaking 5.4 million Americans recently lost their health insurance. Under our dysfunctional healthcare system, when you lose your job, you often lose your health insurance, and that now leaves us with over 90 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured; that is, 90 million Americans who today worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when they or their kids are sick. The Senate is doing nothing. In total, American households have lost a staggering $6.5 trillion in wealth since this pandemic began. It is an unimaginable number. What does that mean? That $6.5 trillion is a number much too large for many of us to fathom, and the Senate does nothing. Although I know there is some obfuscation about this, what everybody in America should understand is that over 2.5 months ago, the House did its job. Over 2.5 months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives did its job, and they passed legislation responding to the enormous pain and suffering that the American people are now experiencing. They did their job, but the Senate has not. The Heroes Act passed by the House in May would extend the $600-a-week increase in unemployment benefits until January. I want everybody to understand that. I think sometimes there is confusion. The House did its job. Under the House bill, if that bill were passed here today here in the Senate, people would continue to get that $600 supplement in their unemployment benefits. The House bill would provide over $900 billion to State and local governments to prevent the massive layoff of teachers, firefighters, nurses, construction workers, and millions of other workers who are serving the public during this horrific pandemic. Over 1 million workers who work for State and local governments have already lost their jobs, and if we do not provide substantial aid to State and local governments, there will be a mass epidemic of job loss there. The House bill would provide hazard pay to essential workers, which is something that is long, long overdue. People are putting their lives on the line and sometimes dying in order to provide us with groceries or to get us to work on a bus or on a train. Those workers need hazard pay, and that is what the House did. The House also passed a provision in their legislation to require businesses to adopt strong health and safety standards to protect their employees and their customers. The House bill would provide $175 billion in rental and foreclosure assistance to make sure that millions of Americans do not lose their homes or get evicted from their apartments and end up out on the streets. The House bill also provides vital funding for nutritional assistance, for election security--an enormous issue here, whether or not we are going to have free and fair elections--and also substantial funding for the U.S. Postal Service, which is now being sabotaged by the Trump administration. That is what the House passed 2.5 months ago. Do I agree with everything that was in the House bill? No, I don't. I think much of it, however, is excellent. But we can and should make improvements in that bill here in the Senate. That is what we should be doing--accepting the bill and improving it. Two and a half months after the House passed its bill, Senate Republicans finally woke up, and they said: We have to do something. We have to respond. The public wants us to respond. We have to do something. And they finally released their bill to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Unfortunately, although not surprisingly, the Republican plan is woefully inadequate for the working families of our country, for the elderly, for their children, and for the poor, while at the same time it provides even more corporate welfare to the rich and the powerful. One might think that in the midst of this terrible pandemic, my Republican colleagues could control themselves just a bit and not pile on more benefits to the people who don't need them and maybe--just maybe--pay attention to the people who do need help. The Senate Republican bill provides nothing for hazard pay. If you are a grocery store worker, if you are a truckdriver, if you are a busdriver, if you are working in mass transit, nothing in that bill is provided for hazard pay. There is nothing for nutrition assistance and nothing for the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Ninety-two million people are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a terrible public health crisis, and the Republican legislation ignores that reality completely. There is nothing for the U.S. Postal Service and nothing for State and local governments, many of which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Here is what that Republican bill does contain. It does include another$29 billion for the Pentagon. Last week, this body passed a $740 billion bill for the Pentagon, which is more money than the next 11 nations combined, most of which are our allies--a huge military budget, but clearly, in the midst of the pandemic, the Pentagon needs even more. The Republican bill does include another tax break for the meals and entertainment of wealthy CEOs. The Republican bill does include another $1.75 billion for an FBI building, $1 billion for new surveillance planes, $636 million more for F-35s, $360 million more for a new missile defense system, and $283 million more for Apache helicopters. I am not quite sure what Apache helicopters have to do with a pandemic, but be that as it may, they did put money in for the helicopters and for the Pentagon. Under the Republican bill, if you are a wealthy business executive, you will get a 100-percent tax deduction for a three-martini lunch--a 100-percent tax deduction for having lunch at some fancy restaurant and spending another couple hundred dollars on your meal. But if you are one of the 26 low-income Americans who do not have enough food to eat, you get nothing in the Republican bill. In other words, when Republicans, in their bill, refer to nutrition, they are talking about tax breaks for the rich who eat at expensive restaurants but not one nickel for the children in this country who are facing hunger. Under the Republican bill, if you are a profitable defense contractor, you will receive an additional $11 billion in corporate welfare, but if you are one of the 92 million Americans who are uninsured or underinsured, you get nothing. Under the Republican bill, if you are a business owner who forces employees to work in an unsafe and unhealthy environment, you are rewarded. The Republican bill will provide you with the immunity you need from lawsuits if your workers get sick or die from the coronavirus. In other words, you have employers who are saying: You have to come back to work, or else you are going to get fired and not be able to feed your family. But the working conditions that we are providing for you are not protective of your health, and if you get sick, if you die, you are on your own. Don't hold us responsible for that. The Republican bill does not provide a nickel for essential workers during this pandemic, but it does make sure that you do not receive the hazard pay or the personal protective equipment that you need and deserve. Unbelievably--unbelievably--in the richest country in the history of the world, we have tens of thousands of workers--not only doctors and nurses but workers from all kinds of professions--who are interacting with the public who need high-quality personal protective equipment, and they don't have it. While the Republican bill slashes unemployment benefits by 43 percent for 30 million Americans who lost their jobs, it continues a $135 billion tax break to 43,000 millionaires, primarily in the real estate and hedge fund industry. In other words, we stop the $600 benefit for unemployment, but we maintain a $135 billion tax break for the wealthy. It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to the Senate Republican proposal. Instead of listening to the needs of the military-industrial complex, we should be listening to the needs of working families and the poor. Instead of providing more tax breaks to the very wealthy, we need to provide more economic relief to the tens of millions of Americans who are hurting economically. Just last month, I asked my constituents in Vermont and, in fact, all over this country to write to me, email me, and tell me how the economic crisis we are in has impacted their lives. We received thousands and thousands of responses. I would like to take a moment to read just a few of the many stories that came into my office because I think sometimes it is very easy for us to live in a bubble and not really appreciate what is going on. It is especially more difficult when, because of the pandemic, many of us can't get out the way we would like to get out. So I used our email approach to reach out to people in Vermont and around the country and asked them to tell me what is going on, what is going on in your lives. Let me just repeat and read to you some of the responses--a few of the responses that I received. A gentleman named Dominic from Williston, VT, wrote: Without the additional $600/week benefit, my benefit will automatically revert to the minimum $191/week. So he is now getting $791. If he didn't have that $600, it would be $191. At that rate, my wife and I will be in serious crisis within a month. Like millions of other people, Dominic does not have a lot of money in the bank. If he did not get that $600 on top of his unemployment benefit, which in Vermont, for him, would be $191 a week, he would be in a serious financial crisis. Denise from Waitsfield, VT, wrote: I lost my job due to COVID-19 on March 16, 2020. The PUA program and the additional $600 per week is keeping our family out of debt and allowing us to afford our mortgage. Without PUA and the additional federal stimulus, our family would not be able to survive financially. In other words, without the unemployment and that $600 supplement, her family would not be able to survive financially. Casey from Burlington, VT, wrote: I have been unemployed since March 20th and have no job to return to and limited options for finding a new job in a timely fashion; losing the extra $600/weekly unemployment benefit would be devastating for me. I know it would be the same for so many others, including many friends and family. Amanda from Isle La Motte, a beautiful town in Northern Vermont, works, as it happens, while living in Vermont, for an unemployment office in the State of Massachusetts. She wrote--and this speaks to the job that she now has: I have heard heart wrenching stories. I've had moms crying that they can't feed their kids, families telling me they've been evicted and are homeless. A single dad who was a self- employed musician, he cried with me saying his savings had run out, he had no money for food. This man's story will stick with me the rest of my life. I've cried so many days for all these people I can't help. I suggest the government officials work in an unemployment call center for a day. The heart-wrenching stories they will hear. I thank Amanda for that. I thank Amanda for the work she is doing and what she is trying to do but for reminding us that, in too many instances, Members of Congress are isolated from the reality that is taking place out there. The stories go on and on and on. Now that the $600 a week in unemployment benefits has expired, now that the moratorium on evictions has also expired, this crisis is only going to get worse and worse and worse. In my view, we need to extend the extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits for the 30 million Americans who have lost their jobs. I think that is a no-brainer. People are hurting. People are desperate. People cannot feed their kids. People are going to be evicted from their homes and their apartments. We have to respond to that pain and extend that $600 supplement to normal unemployment. I would go further. I believe that we need to make sure that every working-class person in this country receives $2,000 a month until this crisis is over so they can have the security they need that they and their family are going to survive this crisis with dignity. And we cannot continue to ignore the reality that 92 million Americans today are uninsured or underinsured. While I, of course, believe in Medicare for All and will continue that fight, at least during this crisis, we should make sure that all of the 92 million who are uninsured or underinsured get covered by Medicare for their out-of-pocket expenses. It is not asking too much that, during this crisis, people who have private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid not have to pay out-of-pocket expenses. We need a coronavirus relief bill that benefits the working class of this country and low-income people, not the wealthy and the well connected. Now, what I think many people do not fully understand--it doesn't get a whole lot of attention--is that, during this pandemic, not everybody is hurting. Not everybody out there needs the Senate to act. While over 30 million Americans have seen their $600 a week in unemployment benefits expire, thanks to the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve to prop up the stock market, 467 billionaires in this country have seen their wealth go upby over $730 billion since the pandemic has begun. Let me repeat that: 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $730 billion in the last several months of this pandemic. Millions of people are unemployed, struggling to put food on the table, but 467 billionaires have seen their wealth go up by over $700 billion. Meanwhile, during the last 4 months, while the very, very wealthy have become much richer, American households have seen their wealth go down by $6.5 trillion. In all likelihood, in the midst of everything else we are experiencing, we are currently looking at what is likely the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the modern history of this country. A massive transfer of wealth: the working-class and middle-class poor getting poorer; the people at the very, very top becoming phenomenally richer. In other words, in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of an economic meltdown for working families, in the midst of a great struggle regarding systemic racism and police brutality, in the midst of the existential threat to our planet of climate change, in the midst of a President undermining democracy and moving this country in an authoritarian direction--in the midst of all of that, we are also seeing a massive increase in income and wealth inequality and the movement in this country toward oligarchy. Let me just give you a few examples of the incredible growth in inequality that is taking place right now as we speak. While Amazon is denying paid sick leave to its employees, while they are denying hazard pay and personal protective equipment to 450,000 of their workers, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, has increased his wealth by over $70 billion. Yes, one person, during the pandemic, has seen his wealth increase by $70--7-0--billion. While U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages at Walmart by providing food stamps and affordable housing and Medicaid to the workers who are employed by the Walton family of Walmart, the Walton family--the owner of Walmart--has made over $20 billion during the pandemic and now has a net worth of over $200 billion. While 40 million Americans face eviction, Elon Musk has nearly tripled his wealth over the past 4 months and now has a net worth of more than $70 billion. While millions of Americans are lining up at emergency food banks because they don't have enough money to put food on the table, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has increased his wealth by more than $37 billion during the pandemic and is now worth over $70 billion. In a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when so many people in our country are hurting, it is morally obscene for billionaires to use a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits and to very substantially increase their wealth, and that is why I will be introducing legislation tomorrow to tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this public health crisis. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, if we tax 60 percent of the windfall gains these billionaires made from March 18 until August 3, we could raise over $420 billion. That is enough revenue to allow Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for every man, woman, and child in this country over the next 12 months. So that is the choice we have to make. Do we have a tax on the obscene increase in wealth that has taken place for a few hundred billionaires during this pandemic or do we have a fair tax on their wealth and say to every man, woman, and child: During this crisis, you will no longer have to pay anything out of pocket for the healthcare you and your family need? By taxing 60 percent of the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires--so, in a nation of 330 million people, we are talking about a tax on 467 of them--a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent. Just by doing that, we could guarantee healthcare as a right for all people in this country for an entire year. By the way, if anybody out there is very worried about the impact of this tax on the billionaires, on the people who are being taxed--how will they survive a 60-percent tax? That is a high tax. Do you think they are going to make it? Well, we have left them more than $310 billion to survive with. That is a $310 billion increase in their wealth. That is what we have left them. In my view, above and beyond this circumstance, above and beyond the pandemic, this Nation must address the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists. It existed before the pandemic, and it is even worse now. In my view, we can no longer tolerate three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of our Nation at a time when 30 million Americans have lost their jobs and 93 million people are either uninsured or underinsured. We need to reconsider our value system and make it clear that so few cannot have so very much, such obscene wealth--which is exploding during the pandemic--while so many of our people are living in economic desperation. Now is the time to develop a new set of priorities and a new set of moral values for this country. Now is the time to tax the winnings of a handful of billionaires to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans. The time is long overdue for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class of this country, the people who are hurting like they have never hurt before--not in our lifetime--and have the courage to tell the billionaire class, who are doing phenomenally well, that they cannot have it all. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4913 | null | 1,131 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about a couple of issues I know that will be considered--at least I hope will be considered--in the negotiations that are under way. Later in this hour, we will be joined by three of my colleagues: Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Duckworth. Each of us will be talking about these issues from different perspectives, but all focused on those in our society who are most at risk in the midst of this worldwide pandemic and in the midst of this economic and jobs crisis that we are confronting right now. We know that this is the most difficult public health crisis in a century, and one of largest, if not in the top two, job crises we have ever faced. When we talk about Americans who are most at risk, among them are, of course, older Americans. Tonight, I will spend some time talking about older Americans in nursing homes who are at risk if we don't take action, and people with disabilities who need the benefit of--as do many older Americans need the benefit of--home and community-based services; and, third, Americans who are in communities of color who need the benefit of Medicaid, among other programs that we should be focused on. Let me start with nursing homes. We know that in the context of nursing homes, the skilled care that is provided there is the highest level of care for an older American or sometimes a person with a disability. We also know that is care that is provided to men and women who have done so much for the country--Americans who have fought our wars, worked in our factories, built the middle class, built America in so many ways and gave us life and love. All that they ask and all their families ask is when they are in a long-term care facility, especially a nursing home, that they are receiving skilled care that is quality care, and in the midst of this crisis, that we are taking every step possible to protect them from the virus and to keep them safe. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened in America today. As we speak tonight, more than just a couple of days ago, the number was lower than this, but now it is more than 62,000 Americans who have died in long-term care settings. Most of those are in nursing homes. When you add up the number of residents who contracted the virus and died with the workers who have died, the number is more than 62,000 Americans. That isabout 40 percent of all the deaths in America. We have to take steps to get those numbers down--both the death number as well as the case number. Of course, the two are directly related. A number of months ago, Senator Whitehouse, who joins us on the floor tonight, and I introduced S. 3768, which was the Nursing Home Protection and Prevention Act. It was a proposed $20 billion investment in best practices. The tragedy here is that we know what works to get the death number down in nursing homes. We know exactly what works. Those nursing homes that were implementing these best practices months ago--way back, sometime in early March or even in February--are the ones that had lower numbers, fortunately, of deaths and case numbers. We know that you have to invest in a series of best practices, which means having enough personal protective equipment for everyone in a nursing home, but especially the residents and workers. We know that is essential to keeping people safe. We know that testing is part of that, of course, and having the capacity to test frequently and to have results transmitted very quickly. Cohorting is not a term that we hear a lot about, but it is a very simple concept. Cohorting means you separate the residents with COVID-19 from those who don't have it. As easy as that is to say, it is more difficult to institute in a nursing home. Sometimes you have to retrofit. Sometimes you have to take other steps that funding is needed for. Cohorting works, which stands to reason, but we know it works now that we have some experience with the virus. We know that surge teams are critically important, as well, as part of these best practices. If you have an outbreak in a nursing home--and we have had so many examples of that in my home State of Pennsylvania and in so many other States--when the virus is spreading and there is a crisis in that nursing home because of the virus, you might need more help. You may need more doctors or nurses or certified nurse's assistants or so many other critical personnel in that nursing home. So $20 billion is a good down payment on protecting Americans in nursing homes. Our bill would do that. I am grateful for the help of Senator Whitehouse, as well as so many other Members of the Senate who joined in that bill. Unfortunately, the bill proposed--I guess it was July 27 or one of the last days of July. Unfortunately, the bill proposed by the majority has no meaningful investment in these best practices. We have to ask ourselves: Is this what America is going to settle for, that the greatest country in the history of the world is going to throw up our hands and say: There is really nothing we can do. It is a pernicious virus and the virus is spreading in congregate care settings like nursing homes, where you have individuals who are particularly vulnerable. So there is not much we can do. That is a defeatist, anti-American attitude. We know we can get these numbers down if we make the investment. The America that we claim to be would have a full-court press, a pull-out-all-the-stops effort to make sure that we get these numbers down. I don't think most Americans believe that we should throw up our hands and surrender to another 62,000-plus deaths a couple of months from now, which is where we could be headed if we don't take these steps. No one would assert that we can get these numbers down to zero or that there is some magic wand that will allow us to remove this threat from those we love so much in these nursing homes. But, my God, in America we are not going to take steps we know will work to get the case number down and the death number down? I think America is ready for an action plan that has been developed here in the United States by smart people who know how to attack this problem. So issue No. 1 is the most at-risk Americans. The second issue in terms of at-risk Americans is older Americans and people with disabilities who need the benefit of home and community-based services. Again, the Republican bill proposed by the majority here in the Senate doesn't mention Medicaid. In order to attack the nursing home issue--the nursing home death problem--or to invest in home and community-based services, we need to invest in Medicaid. We must stabilize and strengthen home and community-based services to keep older adults and people with disabilities both safe and healthy. To do that, you have to pay the workers more. The workers should be paid a living wage. When those workers are going into a home to provide that critical care, they should be provided the personal protective equipment that they need to keep themselves safe and also that person with a disability or a senior, if someone is coming into their home. Without sufficient dollars, human service organizations cannot recruit and retain the direct support professionals and personal care attendants who provide essential healthcare and community inclusion services for seniors and people with disabilities. This is just one example, among many. This is a picture of Marisa. She is from Allegheny County, PA. You can see by the picture--you may not see it from a distance--that the T-shirt says: ``Proud to Be Your Neighbor.'' You can barely read the words: ``Giant Eagle.'' That is one of the great supermarket chains in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Marisa uses home and community-based services to live independently. She is a volunteer at a food pantry and works at one of the Giant Eagle grocery stores and has done that work for 19 years. All these years later, she is one of the beneficiaries of this program. She can get services in the home and in her community. The key to this is that without dedicated dollars, agencies like Achieva, one of the many agencies that does this work and provides such services--these agencies will not be able to provide services that people with disabilities like Marisa and families like hers need. Pennsylvania, like many States, has so-called centers for independent living. They told me just last week on a phone call that as for helping people move from a nursing home or a congregate care setting, where often the risk is higher with the virus, often their ability to move people from that setting who want to go into a home or an apartment is fully dependent on the dollars from the funding they have. They have been able to move some people, but very few because they don't have the funding to move them. Another implication of this concern we have is that the direct service providers have scaled back these services. Most don't have enough cash reserve for longer than a month because of the lack of funding. Just imagine that. I introduced a bill 4 months ago, S. 3544, which provided dedicated dollars to respond to this crisis. But it wasn't until the HEROES Act passed by the House--not yet passed by the Senate, but passed by the House 10 weeks ago--included provisions of my bill, which was supported here in the Senate by 28 Senators. I have just two more issues. One is Medicaid and the other issue I will address is on the liability debate. Of course, we know what the Medicaid program is. It has been around since 1965. Medicaid is the program that helps 75 million Americans. If you add up the children on Medicaid, which is about 31 million children, and people with disabilities, which is another 9 million, you have roughly 40 of the 75 million. Medicaid is not just a program. It is a program that saves lives, maybe even more so in the middle of a public health emergency that we have been in all these months. Medicaid is also, I believe, a reflection of who we are as a nation. I think it also reflects whom we value. That is why Medicaid is so critical to seniors living in nursing homes who are sometimes from relatively middle-class families who could not afford long-term care. Many Americans with disabilities--as I mentioned, 9 million at last count, and of course, 31 million children--many of them live in rural Pennsylvania, in rural America. In fact, if you look at it by percentage, it is often the case that in rural counties, there is a higher percentage of children on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a higher percentage in a rural county than children in a county that has a lot of urban communities in it. So rural and small town America depend heavily upon Medicaid. They depend upon Medicaid in another way when you consider rural hospitals. Often the largest employer in a rural county in Pennsylvania--or the second or third largest employer at least--is a rural hospital. We have 48 of our 67 counties that are rural, and in those 48 rural counties, more than half of the top employers in the county are hospitals--or I should say the top or the second or third highest employers. So, of the top three employers in the most rural counties, you have a hospital--and Medicaid is so vital to those rural hospitals--operating on a thin margin and is evermore stressed in a pandemic. Medicaid expansion, of course, made it possible for millions of Americans to get healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, and we just saw yesterday, in the State of Missouri, the vote there to expand Medicaid. It has been happening in a lot of States that may not have embraced Medicaid expansion a number of years ago but that are now embracing it. Medicaid is a safety net in this time of crisis, in terms of the economic and jobs crisis we are living through. It, of course, impacts State budgets. One of the biggest expenditures in State budgets is Medicaid. For example, in our State of Pennsylvania, our unemployment rate in June was 13 percent, and there were 821,000 people out of work. In some counties, the unemployment rate is 14 percent or 15 percent or 16 percent or 17 percent. So, when 821,000 people are out of work in a State, a lot of them have lost their healthcare, and they have turned to Medicaid. Now, in the Families First bill, way back in the early part of March, the matching dollars--the so-called FMAP, which means the Federal matching dollars for Medicaid--were increased by 6.2 percent. That was a good step in the right direction, but Governors in blue and red States will tell you now, as a lot of other people will tell you now, they need an additional increase in Medicaid. I think the 14 percent FMAP, or matching dollar percentage, in the Heroes Act in the House made a lot of sense. I hope we can get to that number in the bill we are considering or we hope to be considering soon. The Republican bill does not have additional dollars for Medicaid, matching dollars, despite the fact that many of the Republican Governors around the country have asked for this kind of help. So I hope that will change as the negotiations move forward. I want to end on time if I can, maybe in the next 10 minutes. That is the goal. Finally, I want to talk about the liability shield issue. There are a lot of different perspectives on this. Let me talk about it in the context of those we are discussing tonight--seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities who need home- and community-based services, folks who are in communities of color, and others who need the benefit of Medicaid. In my judgment, the Republicans' proposal, when you look at the liability proposal, would slam the doors of justice on those who want to bring an action. We have had a lot of commentary lately about our criminal justice system and its defects, its shortcomings, and even about the racism that, I believe, permeates that system. In this context, we are talking about the civil justice system. What do we do about that part of our justice system--the ability for a citizen to bring an action in a court of law to deal with an injury of some kind either by way of negligence or intentional conduct? In this context, we have a proposal by the majority to short-circuit, to undermine, that system of justice. It will affect those we are here to talk about tonight in very real ways whether they are low-income workers or people with disabilities or older adults or even, more broadly, essential workers. Why do I say that? If you are going to use a crisis like we are in now to try to achieve gains that some in this Chamber have tried to achieve for years in the so-called tort system--really, the civil justice system--and you paint with a very broad brush, you are going to slam those doors of justice pretty tightly. Just by way of comment from a Georgetown law professor, David Vladeck, in reference to this proposal, he recently explained the ``extreme reach'' of the proposal vastly exceeds ``any prior `tort reform' bills that have been introduced in Congress.'' He went on to call this corporate liability shield provision ``essentially impenetrable.'' That is how he described the strength of this shield. He warned that such proposals would give ``license for irresponsible and reckless conduct.'' When it comes to liability, it would also preempt all State laws requiring businesses to act reasonably. It would impose a heightened--so-called--clear and convincing burden of proof on plaintiffs instead of the typical preponderance-of-the-evidence standard We know that in our system, in a civil case, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is the lowest standard. Just a little more than 50 percent of the jury would have to make the determination in terms of liability. We know that, in the criminal system, in order to find guilt, it has to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard. There are some cases that are given the middle standard of--so-called--clear and convincing. That burden of proof is right in the middle. In a civil lawsuit, this bill would elevate it from a preponderance to clear and convincing, which would be, I think, a step in the wrong direction. The proposal would also force a worker, a consumer, a resident of a nursing home, or even a patient to show that a business failed to make ``reasonable efforts'' to comply with any applicable government standard. The issue here is that the Federal Government hasn't issued any mandatory standards. So these entities--many of them employers of one kind or another, sometimes very large employers--would be able to follow any standard they would choose. They could choose a local standard or a State standard or a Federal standard even if the one they were to choose would be the weakest standard as it relates to the protection of the worker. What the administration could have done, which I called for and many Members of the Senate called for, would have been to have promulgated a standard against which the actions of an employer could be measured. One idea was to promulgate an emergency temporary standard. I don't know why the Department of Labor wouldn't do that in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century--why the Department of Labor would not simply take that step. That would give clarity to employers. That would give clarity to so many Americans about what the standard would be in a workplace to keep people safe from a raging virus, but they chose not to do that. Without any mandatory standards, it is wide open. Then we are supposed to believe that taking away the right to bring an action is somehow going to be just fine for a period of time. An emergency temporary standard by the Department of Labor should have been promulgated months ago, and it could still do it and remove the uncertainty--the lack of clarity--that prevails right now. With regard to the liability provisions, this bill would immunize healthcare providers and facilities from any claims arising from ``coronavirus-related healthcare services.'' That is pretty broad. How does the bill define that? The bill defines that as follows: the treatment of patients ``for any purpose,'' not merely the treatment of COVID-19 patients during this public health emergency. That is about as broad as it gets, and that impenetrable liability shield would be in place for several years. It gets worse when it comes to people with disabilities. To add insult to injury, just consider what we did last week. Our Nation celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act--a law that extends civil rights protections to people with disabilities in every State. President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law, and Republicans and Democrats and Independents all over the country celebrated its 30th anniversary. Literally, the next day, the majority proposed this corporate liability shield, which would blow a hole in the protections provided by the so-called ADA after the celebration of 30 years. That bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act, makes it possible for people with disabilities to be full participants in American society, but this corporate liability shield would undermine those very protections. It would decimate Federal protections granted under other landmark employment and civil rights laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the so-called ADEA; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is one of the seminal actions, or pieces of legislation, to protect workers. It would also adversely impact the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't know how you could have more of a wrecking ball in place for these landmark pieces of legislation in the middle of a pandemic. I will wrap up by saying that we have a lot of work to do, obviously, in these negotiations. In the midst of the negotiations, we ought to be thinking about the most vulnerable, whether they be older Americans, children, people with disabilities, or folks in communities of color, who have been adversely impacted in so many ways and evermore so in this time of crisis. I will not enter into it the Record, because it will be in the Record anyway, but I am holding in my hand a letter that we sent to Leader McConnell that outlines all of these concerns. It is a letter, led by Senator Duckworth from Illinois, Senator Warren from Massachusetts, and me, as well as now more than 40 of our colleagues, which goes through these concerns that we have for investments in strategies to get the nursing home death number down and for investments in home- and community-based services. It goes through the concerns we raised about the corporate liability shield, as well as about an overdue investment in Medicaid, which is the program that takes care of the most vulnerable among us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4915 | null | 1,132 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about a couple of issues I know that will be considered--at least I hope will be considered--in the negotiations that are under way. Later in this hour, we will be joined by three of my colleagues: Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Duckworth. Each of us will be talking about these issues from different perspectives, but all focused on those in our society who are most at risk in the midst of this worldwide pandemic and in the midst of this economic and jobs crisis that we are confronting right now. We know that this is the most difficult public health crisis in a century, and one of largest, if not in the top two, job crises we have ever faced. When we talk about Americans who are most at risk, among them are, of course, older Americans. Tonight, I will spend some time talking about older Americans in nursing homes who are at risk if we don't take action, and people with disabilities who need the benefit of--as do many older Americans need the benefit of--home and community-based services; and, third, Americans who are in communities of color who need the benefit of Medicaid, among other programs that we should be focused on. Let me start with nursing homes. We know that in the context of nursing homes, the skilled care that is provided there is the highest level of care for an older American or sometimes a person with a disability. We also know that is care that is provided to men and women who have done so much for the country--Americans who have fought our wars, worked in our factories, built the middle class, built America in so many ways and gave us life and love. All that they ask and all their families ask is when they are in a long-term care facility, especially a nursing home, that they are receiving skilled care that is quality care, and in the midst of this crisis, that we are taking every step possible to protect them from the virus and to keep them safe. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened in America today. As we speak tonight, more than just a couple of days ago, the number was lower than this, but now it is more than 62,000 Americans who have died in long-term care settings. Most of those are in nursing homes. When you add up the number of residents who contracted the virus and died with the workers who have died, the number is more than 62,000 Americans. That isabout 40 percent of all the deaths in America. We have to take steps to get those numbers down--both the death number as well as the case number. Of course, the two are directly related. A number of months ago, Senator Whitehouse, who joins us on the floor tonight, and I introduced S. 3768, which was the Nursing Home Protection and Prevention Act. It was a proposed $20 billion investment in best practices. The tragedy here is that we know what works to get the death number down in nursing homes. We know exactly what works. Those nursing homes that were implementing these best practices months ago--way back, sometime in early March or even in February--are the ones that had lower numbers, fortunately, of deaths and case numbers. We know that you have to invest in a series of best practices, which means having enough personal protective equipment for everyone in a nursing home, but especially the residents and workers. We know that is essential to keeping people safe. We know that testing is part of that, of course, and having the capacity to test frequently and to have results transmitted very quickly. Cohorting is not a term that we hear a lot about, but it is a very simple concept. Cohorting means you separate the residents with COVID-19 from those who don't have it. As easy as that is to say, it is more difficult to institute in a nursing home. Sometimes you have to retrofit. Sometimes you have to take other steps that funding is needed for. Cohorting works, which stands to reason, but we know it works now that we have some experience with the virus. We know that surge teams are critically important, as well, as part of these best practices. If you have an outbreak in a nursing home--and we have had so many examples of that in my home State of Pennsylvania and in so many other States--when the virus is spreading and there is a crisis in that nursing home because of the virus, you might need more help. You may need more doctors or nurses or certified nurse's assistants or so many other critical personnel in that nursing home. So $20 billion is a good down payment on protecting Americans in nursing homes. Our bill would do that. I am grateful for the help of Senator Whitehouse, as well as so many other Members of the Senate who joined in that bill. Unfortunately, the bill proposed--I guess it was July 27 or one of the last days of July. Unfortunately, the bill proposed by the majority has no meaningful investment in these best practices. We have to ask ourselves: Is this what America is going to settle for, that the greatest country in the history of the world is going to throw up our hands and say: There is really nothing we can do. It is a pernicious virus and the virus is spreading in congregate care settings like nursing homes, where you have individuals who are particularly vulnerable. So there is not much we can do. That is a defeatist, anti-American attitude. We know we can get these numbers down if we make the investment. The America that we claim to be would have a full-court press, a pull-out-all-the-stops effort to make sure that we get these numbers down. I don't think most Americans believe that we should throw up our hands and surrender to another 62,000-plus deaths a couple of months from now, which is where we could be headed if we don't take these steps. No one would assert that we can get these numbers down to zero or that there is some magic wand that will allow us to remove this threat from those we love so much in these nursing homes. But, my God, in America we are not going to take steps we know will work to get the case number down and the death number down? I think America is ready for an action plan that has been developed here in the United States by smart people who know how to attack this problem. So issue No. 1 is the most at-risk Americans. The second issue in terms of at-risk Americans is older Americans and people with disabilities who need the benefit of home and community-based services. Again, the Republican bill proposed by the majority here in the Senate doesn't mention Medicaid. In order to attack the nursing home issue--the nursing home death problem--or to invest in home and community-based services, we need to invest in Medicaid. We must stabilize and strengthen home and community-based services to keep older adults and people with disabilities both safe and healthy. To do that, you have to pay the workers more. The workers should be paid a living wage. When those workers are going into a home to provide that critical care, they should be provided the personal protective equipment that they need to keep themselves safe and also that person with a disability or a senior, if someone is coming into their home. Without sufficient dollars, human service organizations cannot recruit and retain the direct support professionals and personal care attendants who provide essential healthcare and community inclusion services for seniors and people with disabilities. This is just one example, among many. This is a picture of Marisa. She is from Allegheny County, PA. You can see by the picture--you may not see it from a distance--that the T-shirt says: ``Proud to Be Your Neighbor.'' You can barely read the words: ``Giant Eagle.'' That is one of the great supermarket chains in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Marisa uses home and community-based services to live independently. She is a volunteer at a food pantry and works at one of the Giant Eagle grocery stores and has done that work for 19 years. All these years later, she is one of the beneficiaries of this program. She can get services in the home and in her community. The key to this is that without dedicated dollars, agencies like Achieva, one of the many agencies that does this work and provides such services--these agencies will not be able to provide services that people with disabilities like Marisa and families like hers need. Pennsylvania, like many States, has so-called centers for independent living. They told me just last week on a phone call that as for helping people move from a nursing home or a congregate care setting, where often the risk is higher with the virus, often their ability to move people from that setting who want to go into a home or an apartment is fully dependent on the dollars from the funding they have. They have been able to move some people, but very few because they don't have the funding to move them. Another implication of this concern we have is that the direct service providers have scaled back these services. Most don't have enough cash reserve for longer than a month because of the lack of funding. Just imagine that. I introduced a bill 4 months ago, S. 3544, which provided dedicated dollars to respond to this crisis. But it wasn't until the HEROES Act passed by the House--not yet passed by the Senate, but passed by the House 10 weeks ago--included provisions of my bill, which was supported here in the Senate by 28 Senators. I have just two more issues. One is Medicaid and the other issue I will address is on the liability debate. Of course, we know what the Medicaid program is. It has been around since 1965. Medicaid is the program that helps 75 million Americans. If you add up the children on Medicaid, which is about 31 million children, and people with disabilities, which is another 9 million, you have roughly 40 of the 75 million. Medicaid is not just a program. It is a program that saves lives, maybe even more so in the middle of a public health emergency that we have been in all these months. Medicaid is also, I believe, a reflection of who we are as a nation. I think it also reflects whom we value. That is why Medicaid is so critical to seniors living in nursing homes who are sometimes from relatively middle-class families who could not afford long-term care. Many Americans with disabilities--as I mentioned, 9 million at last count, and of course, 31 million children--many of them live in rural Pennsylvania, in rural America. In fact, if you look at it by percentage, it is often the case that in rural counties, there is a higher percentage of children on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a higher percentage in a rural county than children in a county that has a lot of urban communities in it. So rural and small town America depend heavily upon Medicaid. They depend upon Medicaid in another way when you consider rural hospitals. Often the largest employer in a rural county in Pennsylvania--or the second or third largest employer at least--is a rural hospital. We have 48 of our 67 counties that are rural, and in those 48 rural counties, more than half of the top employers in the county are hospitals--or I should say the top or the second or third highest employers. So, of the top three employers in the most rural counties, you have a hospital--and Medicaid is so vital to those rural hospitals--operating on a thin margin and is evermore stressed in a pandemic. Medicaid expansion, of course, made it possible for millions of Americans to get healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, and we just saw yesterday, in the State of Missouri, the vote there to expand Medicaid. It has been happening in a lot of States that may not have embraced Medicaid expansion a number of years ago but that are now embracing it. Medicaid is a safety net in this time of crisis, in terms of the economic and jobs crisis we are living through. It, of course, impacts State budgets. One of the biggest expenditures in State budgets is Medicaid. For example, in our State of Pennsylvania, our unemployment rate in June was 13 percent, and there were 821,000 people out of work. In some counties, the unemployment rate is 14 percent or 15 percent or 16 percent or 17 percent. So, when 821,000 people are out of work in a State, a lot of them have lost their healthcare, and they have turned to Medicaid. Now, in the Families First bill, way back in the early part of March, the matching dollars--the so-called FMAP, which means the Federal matching dollars for Medicaid--were increased by 6.2 percent. That was a good step in the right direction, but Governors in blue and red States will tell you now, as a lot of other people will tell you now, they need an additional increase in Medicaid. I think the 14 percent FMAP, or matching dollar percentage, in the Heroes Act in the House made a lot of sense. I hope we can get to that number in the bill we are considering or we hope to be considering soon. The Republican bill does not have additional dollars for Medicaid, matching dollars, despite the fact that many of the Republican Governors around the country have asked for this kind of help. So I hope that will change as the negotiations move forward. I want to end on time if I can, maybe in the next 10 minutes. That is the goal. Finally, I want to talk about the liability shield issue. There are a lot of different perspectives on this. Let me talk about it in the context of those we are discussing tonight--seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities who need home- and community-based services, folks who are in communities of color, and others who need the benefit of Medicaid. In my judgment, the Republicans' proposal, when you look at the liability proposal, would slam the doors of justice on those who want to bring an action. We have had a lot of commentary lately about our criminal justice system and its defects, its shortcomings, and even about the racism that, I believe, permeates that system. In this context, we are talking about the civil justice system. What do we do about that part of our justice system--the ability for a citizen to bring an action in a court of law to deal with an injury of some kind either by way of negligence or intentional conduct? In this context, we have a proposal by the majority to short-circuit, to undermine, that system of justice. It will affect those we are here to talk about tonight in very real ways whether they are low-income workers or people with disabilities or older adults or even, more broadly, essential workers. Why do I say that? If you are going to use a crisis like we are in now to try to achieve gains that some in this Chamber have tried to achieve for years in the so-called tort system--really, the civil justice system--and you paint with a very broad brush, you are going to slam those doors of justice pretty tightly. Just by way of comment from a Georgetown law professor, David Vladeck, in reference to this proposal, he recently explained the ``extreme reach'' of the proposal vastly exceeds ``any prior `tort reform' bills that have been introduced in Congress.'' He went on to call this corporate liability shield provision ``essentially impenetrable.'' That is how he described the strength of this shield. He warned that such proposals would give ``license for irresponsible and reckless conduct.'' When it comes to liability, it would also preempt all State laws requiring businesses to act reasonably. It would impose a heightened--so-called--clear and convincing burden of proof on plaintiffs instead of the typical preponderance-of-the-evidence standard We know that in our system, in a civil case, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is the lowest standard. Just a little more than 50 percent of the jury would have to make the determination in terms of liability. We know that, in the criminal system, in order to find guilt, it has to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard. There are some cases that are given the middle standard of--so-called--clear and convincing. That burden of proof is right in the middle. In a civil lawsuit, this bill would elevate it from a preponderance to clear and convincing, which would be, I think, a step in the wrong direction. The proposal would also force a worker, a consumer, a resident of a nursing home, or even a patient to show that a business failed to make ``reasonable efforts'' to comply with any applicable government standard. The issue here is that the Federal Government hasn't issued any mandatory standards. So these entities--many of them employers of one kind or another, sometimes very large employers--would be able to follow any standard they would choose. They could choose a local standard or a State standard or a Federal standard even if the one they were to choose would be the weakest standard as it relates to the protection of the worker. What the administration could have done, which I called for and many Members of the Senate called for, would have been to have promulgated a standard against which the actions of an employer could be measured. One idea was to promulgate an emergency temporary standard. I don't know why the Department of Labor wouldn't do that in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century--why the Department of Labor would not simply take that step. That would give clarity to employers. That would give clarity to so many Americans about what the standard would be in a workplace to keep people safe from a raging virus, but they chose not to do that. Without any mandatory standards, it is wide open. Then we are supposed to believe that taking away the right to bring an action is somehow going to be just fine for a period of time. An emergency temporary standard by the Department of Labor should have been promulgated months ago, and it could still do it and remove the uncertainty--the lack of clarity--that prevails right now. With regard to the liability provisions, this bill would immunize healthcare providers and facilities from any claims arising from ``coronavirus-related healthcare services.'' That is pretty broad. How does the bill define that? The bill defines that as follows: the treatment of patients ``for any purpose,'' not merely the treatment of COVID-19 patients during this public health emergency. That is about as broad as it gets, and that impenetrable liability shield would be in place for several years. It gets worse when it comes to people with disabilities. To add insult to injury, just consider what we did last week. Our Nation celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act--a law that extends civil rights protections to people with disabilities in every State. President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law, and Republicans and Democrats and Independents all over the country celebrated its 30th anniversary. Literally, the next day, the majority proposed this corporate liability shield, which would blow a hole in the protections provided by the so-called ADA after the celebration of 30 years. That bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act, makes it possible for people with disabilities to be full participants in American society, but this corporate liability shield would undermine those very protections. It would decimate Federal protections granted under other landmark employment and civil rights laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the so-called ADEA; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is one of the seminal actions, or pieces of legislation, to protect workers. It would also adversely impact the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't know how you could have more of a wrecking ball in place for these landmark pieces of legislation in the middle of a pandemic. I will wrap up by saying that we have a lot of work to do, obviously, in these negotiations. In the midst of the negotiations, we ought to be thinking about the most vulnerable, whether they be older Americans, children, people with disabilities, or folks in communities of color, who have been adversely impacted in so many ways and evermore so in this time of crisis. I will not enter into it the Record, because it will be in the Record anyway, but I am holding in my hand a letter that we sent to Leader McConnell that outlines all of these concerns. It is a letter, led by Senator Duckworth from Illinois, Senator Warren from Massachusetts, and me, as well as now more than 40 of our colleagues, which goes through these concerns that we have for investments in strategies to get the nursing home death number down and for investments in home- and community-based services. It goes through the concerns we raised about the corporate liability shield, as well as about an overdue investment in Medicaid, which is the program that takes care of the most vulnerable among us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4915 | null | 1,133 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about a couple of issues I know that will be considered--at least I hope will be considered--in the negotiations that are under way. Later in this hour, we will be joined by three of my colleagues: Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Duckworth. Each of us will be talking about these issues from different perspectives, but all focused on those in our society who are most at risk in the midst of this worldwide pandemic and in the midst of this economic and jobs crisis that we are confronting right now. We know that this is the most difficult public health crisis in a century, and one of largest, if not in the top two, job crises we have ever faced. When we talk about Americans who are most at risk, among them are, of course, older Americans. Tonight, I will spend some time talking about older Americans in nursing homes who are at risk if we don't take action, and people with disabilities who need the benefit of--as do many older Americans need the benefit of--home and community-based services; and, third, Americans who are in communities of color who need the benefit of Medicaid, among other programs that we should be focused on. Let me start with nursing homes. We know that in the context of nursing homes, the skilled care that is provided there is the highest level of care for an older American or sometimes a person with a disability. We also know that is care that is provided to men and women who have done so much for the country--Americans who have fought our wars, worked in our factories, built the middle class, built America in so many ways and gave us life and love. All that they ask and all their families ask is when they are in a long-term care facility, especially a nursing home, that they are receiving skilled care that is quality care, and in the midst of this crisis, that we are taking every step possible to protect them from the virus and to keep them safe. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened in America today. As we speak tonight, more than just a couple of days ago, the number was lower than this, but now it is more than 62,000 Americans who have died in long-term care settings. Most of those are in nursing homes. When you add up the number of residents who contracted the virus and died with the workers who have died, the number is more than 62,000 Americans. That isabout 40 percent of all the deaths in America. We have to take steps to get those numbers down--both the death number as well as the case number. Of course, the two are directly related. A number of months ago, Senator Whitehouse, who joins us on the floor tonight, and I introduced S. 3768, which was the Nursing Home Protection and Prevention Act. It was a proposed $20 billion investment in best practices. The tragedy here is that we know what works to get the death number down in nursing homes. We know exactly what works. Those nursing homes that were implementing these best practices months ago--way back, sometime in early March or even in February--are the ones that had lower numbers, fortunately, of deaths and case numbers. We know that you have to invest in a series of best practices, which means having enough personal protective equipment for everyone in a nursing home, but especially the residents and workers. We know that is essential to keeping people safe. We know that testing is part of that, of course, and having the capacity to test frequently and to have results transmitted very quickly. Cohorting is not a term that we hear a lot about, but it is a very simple concept. Cohorting means you separate the residents with COVID-19 from those who don't have it. As easy as that is to say, it is more difficult to institute in a nursing home. Sometimes you have to retrofit. Sometimes you have to take other steps that funding is needed for. Cohorting works, which stands to reason, but we know it works now that we have some experience with the virus. We know that surge teams are critically important, as well, as part of these best practices. If you have an outbreak in a nursing home--and we have had so many examples of that in my home State of Pennsylvania and in so many other States--when the virus is spreading and there is a crisis in that nursing home because of the virus, you might need more help. You may need more doctors or nurses or certified nurse's assistants or so many other critical personnel in that nursing home. So $20 billion is a good down payment on protecting Americans in nursing homes. Our bill would do that. I am grateful for the help of Senator Whitehouse, as well as so many other Members of the Senate who joined in that bill. Unfortunately, the bill proposed--I guess it was July 27 or one of the last days of July. Unfortunately, the bill proposed by the majority has no meaningful investment in these best practices. We have to ask ourselves: Is this what America is going to settle for, that the greatest country in the history of the world is going to throw up our hands and say: There is really nothing we can do. It is a pernicious virus and the virus is spreading in congregate care settings like nursing homes, where you have individuals who are particularly vulnerable. So there is not much we can do. That is a defeatist, anti-American attitude. We know we can get these numbers down if we make the investment. The America that we claim to be would have a full-court press, a pull-out-all-the-stops effort to make sure that we get these numbers down. I don't think most Americans believe that we should throw up our hands and surrender to another 62,000-plus deaths a couple of months from now, which is where we could be headed if we don't take these steps. No one would assert that we can get these numbers down to zero or that there is some magic wand that will allow us to remove this threat from those we love so much in these nursing homes. But, my God, in America we are not going to take steps we know will work to get the case number down and the death number down? I think America is ready for an action plan that has been developed here in the United States by smart people who know how to attack this problem. So issue No. 1 is the most at-risk Americans. The second issue in terms of at-risk Americans is older Americans and people with disabilities who need the benefit of home and community-based services. Again, the Republican bill proposed by the majority here in the Senate doesn't mention Medicaid. In order to attack the nursing home issue--the nursing home death problem--or to invest in home and community-based services, we need to invest in Medicaid. We must stabilize and strengthen home and community-based services to keep older adults and people with disabilities both safe and healthy. To do that, you have to pay the workers more. The workers should be paid a living wage. When those workers are going into a home to provide that critical care, they should be provided the personal protective equipment that they need to keep themselves safe and also that person with a disability or a senior, if someone is coming into their home. Without sufficient dollars, human service organizations cannot recruit and retain the direct support professionals and personal care attendants who provide essential healthcare and community inclusion services for seniors and people with disabilities. This is just one example, among many. This is a picture of Marisa. She is from Allegheny County, PA. You can see by the picture--you may not see it from a distance--that the T-shirt says: ``Proud to Be Your Neighbor.'' You can barely read the words: ``Giant Eagle.'' That is one of the great supermarket chains in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Marisa uses home and community-based services to live independently. She is a volunteer at a food pantry and works at one of the Giant Eagle grocery stores and has done that work for 19 years. All these years later, she is one of the beneficiaries of this program. She can get services in the home and in her community. The key to this is that without dedicated dollars, agencies like Achieva, one of the many agencies that does this work and provides such services--these agencies will not be able to provide services that people with disabilities like Marisa and families like hers need. Pennsylvania, like many States, has so-called centers for independent living. They told me just last week on a phone call that as for helping people move from a nursing home or a congregate care setting, where often the risk is higher with the virus, often their ability to move people from that setting who want to go into a home or an apartment is fully dependent on the dollars from the funding they have. They have been able to move some people, but very few because they don't have the funding to move them. Another implication of this concern we have is that the direct service providers have scaled back these services. Most don't have enough cash reserve for longer than a month because of the lack of funding. Just imagine that. I introduced a bill 4 months ago, S. 3544, which provided dedicated dollars to respond to this crisis. But it wasn't until the HEROES Act passed by the House--not yet passed by the Senate, but passed by the House 10 weeks ago--included provisions of my bill, which was supported here in the Senate by 28 Senators. I have just two more issues. One is Medicaid and the other issue I will address is on the liability debate. Of course, we know what the Medicaid program is. It has been around since 1965. Medicaid is the program that helps 75 million Americans. If you add up the children on Medicaid, which is about 31 million children, and people with disabilities, which is another 9 million, you have roughly 40 of the 75 million. Medicaid is not just a program. It is a program that saves lives, maybe even more so in the middle of a public health emergency that we have been in all these months. Medicaid is also, I believe, a reflection of who we are as a nation. I think it also reflects whom we value. That is why Medicaid is so critical to seniors living in nursing homes who are sometimes from relatively middle-class families who could not afford long-term care. Many Americans with disabilities--as I mentioned, 9 million at last count, and of course, 31 million children--many of them live in rural Pennsylvania, in rural America. In fact, if you look at it by percentage, it is often the case that in rural counties, there is a higher percentage of children on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a higher percentage in a rural county than children in a county that has a lot of urban communities in it. So rural and small town America depend heavily upon Medicaid. They depend upon Medicaid in another way when you consider rural hospitals. Often the largest employer in a rural county in Pennsylvania--or the second or third largest employer at least--is a rural hospital. We have 48 of our 67 counties that are rural, and in those 48 rural counties, more than half of the top employers in the county are hospitals--or I should say the top or the second or third highest employers. So, of the top three employers in the most rural counties, you have a hospital--and Medicaid is so vital to those rural hospitals--operating on a thin margin and is evermore stressed in a pandemic. Medicaid expansion, of course, made it possible for millions of Americans to get healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, and we just saw yesterday, in the State of Missouri, the vote there to expand Medicaid. It has been happening in a lot of States that may not have embraced Medicaid expansion a number of years ago but that are now embracing it. Medicaid is a safety net in this time of crisis, in terms of the economic and jobs crisis we are living through. It, of course, impacts State budgets. One of the biggest expenditures in State budgets is Medicaid. For example, in our State of Pennsylvania, our unemployment rate in June was 13 percent, and there were 821,000 people out of work. In some counties, the unemployment rate is 14 percent or 15 percent or 16 percent or 17 percent. So, when 821,000 people are out of work in a State, a lot of them have lost their healthcare, and they have turned to Medicaid. Now, in the Families First bill, way back in the early part of March, the matching dollars--the so-called FMAP, which means the Federal matching dollars for Medicaid--were increased by 6.2 percent. That was a good step in the right direction, but Governors in blue and red States will tell you now, as a lot of other people will tell you now, they need an additional increase in Medicaid. I think the 14 percent FMAP, or matching dollar percentage, in the Heroes Act in the House made a lot of sense. I hope we can get to that number in the bill we are considering or we hope to be considering soon. The Republican bill does not have additional dollars for Medicaid, matching dollars, despite the fact that many of the Republican Governors around the country have asked for this kind of help. So I hope that will change as the negotiations move forward. I want to end on time if I can, maybe in the next 10 minutes. That is the goal. Finally, I want to talk about the liability shield issue. There are a lot of different perspectives on this. Let me talk about it in the context of those we are discussing tonight--seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities who need home- and community-based services, folks who are in communities of color, and others who need the benefit of Medicaid. In my judgment, the Republicans' proposal, when you look at the liability proposal, would slam the doors of justice on those who want to bring an action. We have had a lot of commentary lately about our criminal justice system and its defects, its shortcomings, and even about the racism that, I believe, permeates that system. In this context, we are talking about the civil justice system. What do we do about that part of our justice system--the ability for a citizen to bring an action in a court of law to deal with an injury of some kind either by way of negligence or intentional conduct? In this context, we have a proposal by the majority to short-circuit, to undermine, that system of justice. It will affect those we are here to talk about tonight in very real ways whether they are low-income workers or people with disabilities or older adults or even, more broadly, essential workers. Why do I say that? If you are going to use a crisis like we are in now to try to achieve gains that some in this Chamber have tried to achieve for years in the so-called tort system--really, the civil justice system--and you paint with a very broad brush, you are going to slam those doors of justice pretty tightly. Just by way of comment from a Georgetown law professor, David Vladeck, in reference to this proposal, he recently explained the ``extreme reach'' of the proposal vastly exceeds ``any prior `tort reform' bills that have been introduced in Congress.'' He went on to call this corporate liability shield provision ``essentially impenetrable.'' That is how he described the strength of this shield. He warned that such proposals would give ``license for irresponsible and reckless conduct.'' When it comes to liability, it would also preempt all State laws requiring businesses to act reasonably. It would impose a heightened--so-called--clear and convincing burden of proof on plaintiffs instead of the typical preponderance-of-the-evidence standard We know that in our system, in a civil case, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is the lowest standard. Just a little more than 50 percent of the jury would have to make the determination in terms of liability. We know that, in the criminal system, in order to find guilt, it has to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard. There are some cases that are given the middle standard of--so-called--clear and convincing. That burden of proof is right in the middle. In a civil lawsuit, this bill would elevate it from a preponderance to clear and convincing, which would be, I think, a step in the wrong direction. The proposal would also force a worker, a consumer, a resident of a nursing home, or even a patient to show that a business failed to make ``reasonable efforts'' to comply with any applicable government standard. The issue here is that the Federal Government hasn't issued any mandatory standards. So these entities--many of them employers of one kind or another, sometimes very large employers--would be able to follow any standard they would choose. They could choose a local standard or a State standard or a Federal standard even if the one they were to choose would be the weakest standard as it relates to the protection of the worker. What the administration could have done, which I called for and many Members of the Senate called for, would have been to have promulgated a standard against which the actions of an employer could be measured. One idea was to promulgate an emergency temporary standard. I don't know why the Department of Labor wouldn't do that in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century--why the Department of Labor would not simply take that step. That would give clarity to employers. That would give clarity to so many Americans about what the standard would be in a workplace to keep people safe from a raging virus, but they chose not to do that. Without any mandatory standards, it is wide open. Then we are supposed to believe that taking away the right to bring an action is somehow going to be just fine for a period of time. An emergency temporary standard by the Department of Labor should have been promulgated months ago, and it could still do it and remove the uncertainty--the lack of clarity--that prevails right now. With regard to the liability provisions, this bill would immunize healthcare providers and facilities from any claims arising from ``coronavirus-related healthcare services.'' That is pretty broad. How does the bill define that? The bill defines that as follows: the treatment of patients ``for any purpose,'' not merely the treatment of COVID-19 patients during this public health emergency. That is about as broad as it gets, and that impenetrable liability shield would be in place for several years. It gets worse when it comes to people with disabilities. To add insult to injury, just consider what we did last week. Our Nation celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act--a law that extends civil rights protections to people with disabilities in every State. President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law, and Republicans and Democrats and Independents all over the country celebrated its 30th anniversary. Literally, the next day, the majority proposed this corporate liability shield, which would blow a hole in the protections provided by the so-called ADA after the celebration of 30 years. That bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act, makes it possible for people with disabilities to be full participants in American society, but this corporate liability shield would undermine those very protections. It would decimate Federal protections granted under other landmark employment and civil rights laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the so-called ADEA; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is one of the seminal actions, or pieces of legislation, to protect workers. It would also adversely impact the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't know how you could have more of a wrecking ball in place for these landmark pieces of legislation in the middle of a pandemic. I will wrap up by saying that we have a lot of work to do, obviously, in these negotiations. In the midst of the negotiations, we ought to be thinking about the most vulnerable, whether they be older Americans, children, people with disabilities, or folks in communities of color, who have been adversely impacted in so many ways and evermore so in this time of crisis. I will not enter into it the Record, because it will be in the Record anyway, but I am holding in my hand a letter that we sent to Leader McConnell that outlines all of these concerns. It is a letter, led by Senator Duckworth from Illinois, Senator Warren from Massachusetts, and me, as well as now more than 40 of our colleagues, which goes through these concerns that we have for investments in strategies to get the nursing home death number down and for investments in home- and community-based services. It goes through the concerns we raised about the corporate liability shield, as well as about an overdue investment in Medicaid, which is the program that takes care of the most vulnerable among us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4915 | null | 1,134 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about a couple of issues I know that will be considered--at least I hope will be considered--in the negotiations that are under way. Later in this hour, we will be joined by three of my colleagues: Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Duckworth. Each of us will be talking about these issues from different perspectives, but all focused on those in our society who are most at risk in the midst of this worldwide pandemic and in the midst of this economic and jobs crisis that we are confronting right now. We know that this is the most difficult public health crisis in a century, and one of largest, if not in the top two, job crises we have ever faced. When we talk about Americans who are most at risk, among them are, of course, older Americans. Tonight, I will spend some time talking about older Americans in nursing homes who are at risk if we don't take action, and people with disabilities who need the benefit of--as do many older Americans need the benefit of--home and community-based services; and, third, Americans who are in communities of color who need the benefit of Medicaid, among other programs that we should be focused on. Let me start with nursing homes. We know that in the context of nursing homes, the skilled care that is provided there is the highest level of care for an older American or sometimes a person with a disability. We also know that is care that is provided to men and women who have done so much for the country--Americans who have fought our wars, worked in our factories, built the middle class, built America in so many ways and gave us life and love. All that they ask and all their families ask is when they are in a long-term care facility, especially a nursing home, that they are receiving skilled care that is quality care, and in the midst of this crisis, that we are taking every step possible to protect them from the virus and to keep them safe. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened in America today. As we speak tonight, more than just a couple of days ago, the number was lower than this, but now it is more than 62,000 Americans who have died in long-term care settings. Most of those are in nursing homes. When you add up the number of residents who contracted the virus and died with the workers who have died, the number is more than 62,000 Americans. That isabout 40 percent of all the deaths in America. We have to take steps to get those numbers down--both the death number as well as the case number. Of course, the two are directly related. A number of months ago, Senator Whitehouse, who joins us on the floor tonight, and I introduced S. 3768, which was the Nursing Home Protection and Prevention Act. It was a proposed $20 billion investment in best practices. The tragedy here is that we know what works to get the death number down in nursing homes. We know exactly what works. Those nursing homes that were implementing these best practices months ago--way back, sometime in early March or even in February--are the ones that had lower numbers, fortunately, of deaths and case numbers. We know that you have to invest in a series of best practices, which means having enough personal protective equipment for everyone in a nursing home, but especially the residents and workers. We know that is essential to keeping people safe. We know that testing is part of that, of course, and having the capacity to test frequently and to have results transmitted very quickly. Cohorting is not a term that we hear a lot about, but it is a very simple concept. Cohorting means you separate the residents with COVID-19 from those who don't have it. As easy as that is to say, it is more difficult to institute in a nursing home. Sometimes you have to retrofit. Sometimes you have to take other steps that funding is needed for. Cohorting works, which stands to reason, but we know it works now that we have some experience with the virus. We know that surge teams are critically important, as well, as part of these best practices. If you have an outbreak in a nursing home--and we have had so many examples of that in my home State of Pennsylvania and in so many other States--when the virus is spreading and there is a crisis in that nursing home because of the virus, you might need more help. You may need more doctors or nurses or certified nurse's assistants or so many other critical personnel in that nursing home. So $20 billion is a good down payment on protecting Americans in nursing homes. Our bill would do that. I am grateful for the help of Senator Whitehouse, as well as so many other Members of the Senate who joined in that bill. Unfortunately, the bill proposed--I guess it was July 27 or one of the last days of July. Unfortunately, the bill proposed by the majority has no meaningful investment in these best practices. We have to ask ourselves: Is this what America is going to settle for, that the greatest country in the history of the world is going to throw up our hands and say: There is really nothing we can do. It is a pernicious virus and the virus is spreading in congregate care settings like nursing homes, where you have individuals who are particularly vulnerable. So there is not much we can do. That is a defeatist, anti-American attitude. We know we can get these numbers down if we make the investment. The America that we claim to be would have a full-court press, a pull-out-all-the-stops effort to make sure that we get these numbers down. I don't think most Americans believe that we should throw up our hands and surrender to another 62,000-plus deaths a couple of months from now, which is where we could be headed if we don't take these steps. No one would assert that we can get these numbers down to zero or that there is some magic wand that will allow us to remove this threat from those we love so much in these nursing homes. But, my God, in America we are not going to take steps we know will work to get the case number down and the death number down? I think America is ready for an action plan that has been developed here in the United States by smart people who know how to attack this problem. So issue No. 1 is the most at-risk Americans. The second issue in terms of at-risk Americans is older Americans and people with disabilities who need the benefit of home and community-based services. Again, the Republican bill proposed by the majority here in the Senate doesn't mention Medicaid. In order to attack the nursing home issue--the nursing home death problem--or to invest in home and community-based services, we need to invest in Medicaid. We must stabilize and strengthen home and community-based services to keep older adults and people with disabilities both safe and healthy. To do that, you have to pay the workers more. The workers should be paid a living wage. When those workers are going into a home to provide that critical care, they should be provided the personal protective equipment that they need to keep themselves safe and also that person with a disability or a senior, if someone is coming into their home. Without sufficient dollars, human service organizations cannot recruit and retain the direct support professionals and personal care attendants who provide essential healthcare and community inclusion services for seniors and people with disabilities. This is just one example, among many. This is a picture of Marisa. She is from Allegheny County, PA. You can see by the picture--you may not see it from a distance--that the T-shirt says: ``Proud to Be Your Neighbor.'' You can barely read the words: ``Giant Eagle.'' That is one of the great supermarket chains in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Marisa uses home and community-based services to live independently. She is a volunteer at a food pantry and works at one of the Giant Eagle grocery stores and has done that work for 19 years. All these years later, she is one of the beneficiaries of this program. She can get services in the home and in her community. The key to this is that without dedicated dollars, agencies like Achieva, one of the many agencies that does this work and provides such services--these agencies will not be able to provide services that people with disabilities like Marisa and families like hers need. Pennsylvania, like many States, has so-called centers for independent living. They told me just last week on a phone call that as for helping people move from a nursing home or a congregate care setting, where often the risk is higher with the virus, often their ability to move people from that setting who want to go into a home or an apartment is fully dependent on the dollars from the funding they have. They have been able to move some people, but very few because they don't have the funding to move them. Another implication of this concern we have is that the direct service providers have scaled back these services. Most don't have enough cash reserve for longer than a month because of the lack of funding. Just imagine that. I introduced a bill 4 months ago, S. 3544, which provided dedicated dollars to respond to this crisis. But it wasn't until the HEROES Act passed by the House--not yet passed by the Senate, but passed by the House 10 weeks ago--included provisions of my bill, which was supported here in the Senate by 28 Senators. I have just two more issues. One is Medicaid and the other issue I will address is on the liability debate. Of course, we know what the Medicaid program is. It has been around since 1965. Medicaid is the program that helps 75 million Americans. If you add up the children on Medicaid, which is about 31 million children, and people with disabilities, which is another 9 million, you have roughly 40 of the 75 million. Medicaid is not just a program. It is a program that saves lives, maybe even more so in the middle of a public health emergency that we have been in all these months. Medicaid is also, I believe, a reflection of who we are as a nation. I think it also reflects whom we value. That is why Medicaid is so critical to seniors living in nursing homes who are sometimes from relatively middle-class families who could not afford long-term care. Many Americans with disabilities--as I mentioned, 9 million at last count, and of course, 31 million children--many of them live in rural Pennsylvania, in rural America. In fact, if you look at it by percentage, it is often the case that in rural counties, there is a higher percentage of children on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a higher percentage in a rural county than children in a county that has a lot of urban communities in it. So rural and small town America depend heavily upon Medicaid. They depend upon Medicaid in another way when you consider rural hospitals. Often the largest employer in a rural county in Pennsylvania--or the second or third largest employer at least--is a rural hospital. We have 48 of our 67 counties that are rural, and in those 48 rural counties, more than half of the top employers in the county are hospitals--or I should say the top or the second or third highest employers. So, of the top three employers in the most rural counties, you have a hospital--and Medicaid is so vital to those rural hospitals--operating on a thin margin and is evermore stressed in a pandemic. Medicaid expansion, of course, made it possible for millions of Americans to get healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, and we just saw yesterday, in the State of Missouri, the vote there to expand Medicaid. It has been happening in a lot of States that may not have embraced Medicaid expansion a number of years ago but that are now embracing it. Medicaid is a safety net in this time of crisis, in terms of the economic and jobs crisis we are living through. It, of course, impacts State budgets. One of the biggest expenditures in State budgets is Medicaid. For example, in our State of Pennsylvania, our unemployment rate in June was 13 percent, and there were 821,000 people out of work. In some counties, the unemployment rate is 14 percent or 15 percent or 16 percent or 17 percent. So, when 821,000 people are out of work in a State, a lot of them have lost their healthcare, and they have turned to Medicaid. Now, in the Families First bill, way back in the early part of March, the matching dollars--the so-called FMAP, which means the Federal matching dollars for Medicaid--were increased by 6.2 percent. That was a good step in the right direction, but Governors in blue and red States will tell you now, as a lot of other people will tell you now, they need an additional increase in Medicaid. I think the 14 percent FMAP, or matching dollar percentage, in the Heroes Act in the House made a lot of sense. I hope we can get to that number in the bill we are considering or we hope to be considering soon. The Republican bill does not have additional dollars for Medicaid, matching dollars, despite the fact that many of the Republican Governors around the country have asked for this kind of help. So I hope that will change as the negotiations move forward. I want to end on time if I can, maybe in the next 10 minutes. That is the goal. Finally, I want to talk about the liability shield issue. There are a lot of different perspectives on this. Let me talk about it in the context of those we are discussing tonight--seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities who need home- and community-based services, folks who are in communities of color, and others who need the benefit of Medicaid. In my judgment, the Republicans' proposal, when you look at the liability proposal, would slam the doors of justice on those who want to bring an action. We have had a lot of commentary lately about our criminal justice system and its defects, its shortcomings, and even about the racism that, I believe, permeates that system. In this context, we are talking about the civil justice system. What do we do about that part of our justice system--the ability for a citizen to bring an action in a court of law to deal with an injury of some kind either by way of negligence or intentional conduct? In this context, we have a proposal by the majority to short-circuit, to undermine, that system of justice. It will affect those we are here to talk about tonight in very real ways whether they are low-income workers or people with disabilities or older adults or even, more broadly, essential workers. Why do I say that? If you are going to use a crisis like we are in now to try to achieve gains that some in this Chamber have tried to achieve for years in the so-called tort system--really, the civil justice system--and you paint with a very broad brush, you are going to slam those doors of justice pretty tightly. Just by way of comment from a Georgetown law professor, David Vladeck, in reference to this proposal, he recently explained the ``extreme reach'' of the proposal vastly exceeds ``any prior `tort reform' bills that have been introduced in Congress.'' He went on to call this corporate liability shield provision ``essentially impenetrable.'' That is how he described the strength of this shield. He warned that such proposals would give ``license for irresponsible and reckless conduct.'' When it comes to liability, it would also preempt all State laws requiring businesses to act reasonably. It would impose a heightened--so-called--clear and convincing burden of proof on plaintiffs instead of the typical preponderance-of-the-evidence standard We know that in our system, in a civil case, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is the lowest standard. Just a little more than 50 percent of the jury would have to make the determination in terms of liability. We know that, in the criminal system, in order to find guilt, it has to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard. There are some cases that are given the middle standard of--so-called--clear and convincing. That burden of proof is right in the middle. In a civil lawsuit, this bill would elevate it from a preponderance to clear and convincing, which would be, I think, a step in the wrong direction. The proposal would also force a worker, a consumer, a resident of a nursing home, or even a patient to show that a business failed to make ``reasonable efforts'' to comply with any applicable government standard. The issue here is that the Federal Government hasn't issued any mandatory standards. So these entities--many of them employers of one kind or another, sometimes very large employers--would be able to follow any standard they would choose. They could choose a local standard or a State standard or a Federal standard even if the one they were to choose would be the weakest standard as it relates to the protection of the worker. What the administration could have done, which I called for and many Members of the Senate called for, would have been to have promulgated a standard against which the actions of an employer could be measured. One idea was to promulgate an emergency temporary standard. I don't know why the Department of Labor wouldn't do that in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century--why the Department of Labor would not simply take that step. That would give clarity to employers. That would give clarity to so many Americans about what the standard would be in a workplace to keep people safe from a raging virus, but they chose not to do that. Without any mandatory standards, it is wide open. Then we are supposed to believe that taking away the right to bring an action is somehow going to be just fine for a period of time. An emergency temporary standard by the Department of Labor should have been promulgated months ago, and it could still do it and remove the uncertainty--the lack of clarity--that prevails right now. With regard to the liability provisions, this bill would immunize healthcare providers and facilities from any claims arising from ``coronavirus-related healthcare services.'' That is pretty broad. How does the bill define that? The bill defines that as follows: the treatment of patients ``for any purpose,'' not merely the treatment of COVID-19 patients during this public health emergency. That is about as broad as it gets, and that impenetrable liability shield would be in place for several years. It gets worse when it comes to people with disabilities. To add insult to injury, just consider what we did last week. Our Nation celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act--a law that extends civil rights protections to people with disabilities in every State. President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law, and Republicans and Democrats and Independents all over the country celebrated its 30th anniversary. Literally, the next day, the majority proposed this corporate liability shield, which would blow a hole in the protections provided by the so-called ADA after the celebration of 30 years. That bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act, makes it possible for people with disabilities to be full participants in American society, but this corporate liability shield would undermine those very protections. It would decimate Federal protections granted under other landmark employment and civil rights laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the so-called ADEA; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is one of the seminal actions, or pieces of legislation, to protect workers. It would also adversely impact the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't know how you could have more of a wrecking ball in place for these landmark pieces of legislation in the middle of a pandemic. I will wrap up by saying that we have a lot of work to do, obviously, in these negotiations. In the midst of the negotiations, we ought to be thinking about the most vulnerable, whether they be older Americans, children, people with disabilities, or folks in communities of color, who have been adversely impacted in so many ways and evermore so in this time of crisis. I will not enter into it the Record, because it will be in the Record anyway, but I am holding in my hand a letter that we sent to Leader McConnell that outlines all of these concerns. It is a letter, led by Senator Duckworth from Illinois, Senator Warren from Massachusetts, and me, as well as now more than 40 of our colleagues, which goes through these concerns that we have for investments in strategies to get the nursing home death number down and for investments in home- and community-based services. It goes through the concerns we raised about the corporate liability shield, as well as about an overdue investment in Medicaid, which is the program that takes care of the most vulnerable among us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4915 | null | 1,135 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to talk about a couple of issues I know that will be considered--at least I hope will be considered--in the negotiations that are under way. Later in this hour, we will be joined by three of my colleagues: Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Duckworth. Each of us will be talking about these issues from different perspectives, but all focused on those in our society who are most at risk in the midst of this worldwide pandemic and in the midst of this economic and jobs crisis that we are confronting right now. We know that this is the most difficult public health crisis in a century, and one of largest, if not in the top two, job crises we have ever faced. When we talk about Americans who are most at risk, among them are, of course, older Americans. Tonight, I will spend some time talking about older Americans in nursing homes who are at risk if we don't take action, and people with disabilities who need the benefit of--as do many older Americans need the benefit of--home and community-based services; and, third, Americans who are in communities of color who need the benefit of Medicaid, among other programs that we should be focused on. Let me start with nursing homes. We know that in the context of nursing homes, the skilled care that is provided there is the highest level of care for an older American or sometimes a person with a disability. We also know that is care that is provided to men and women who have done so much for the country--Americans who have fought our wars, worked in our factories, built the middle class, built America in so many ways and gave us life and love. All that they ask and all their families ask is when they are in a long-term care facility, especially a nursing home, that they are receiving skilled care that is quality care, and in the midst of this crisis, that we are taking every step possible to protect them from the virus and to keep them safe. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened in America today. As we speak tonight, more than just a couple of days ago, the number was lower than this, but now it is more than 62,000 Americans who have died in long-term care settings. Most of those are in nursing homes. When you add up the number of residents who contracted the virus and died with the workers who have died, the number is more than 62,000 Americans. That isabout 40 percent of all the deaths in America. We have to take steps to get those numbers down--both the death number as well as the case number. Of course, the two are directly related. A number of months ago, Senator Whitehouse, who joins us on the floor tonight, and I introduced S. 3768, which was the Nursing Home Protection and Prevention Act. It was a proposed $20 billion investment in best practices. The tragedy here is that we know what works to get the death number down in nursing homes. We know exactly what works. Those nursing homes that were implementing these best practices months ago--way back, sometime in early March or even in February--are the ones that had lower numbers, fortunately, of deaths and case numbers. We know that you have to invest in a series of best practices, which means having enough personal protective equipment for everyone in a nursing home, but especially the residents and workers. We know that is essential to keeping people safe. We know that testing is part of that, of course, and having the capacity to test frequently and to have results transmitted very quickly. Cohorting is not a term that we hear a lot about, but it is a very simple concept. Cohorting means you separate the residents with COVID-19 from those who don't have it. As easy as that is to say, it is more difficult to institute in a nursing home. Sometimes you have to retrofit. Sometimes you have to take other steps that funding is needed for. Cohorting works, which stands to reason, but we know it works now that we have some experience with the virus. We know that surge teams are critically important, as well, as part of these best practices. If you have an outbreak in a nursing home--and we have had so many examples of that in my home State of Pennsylvania and in so many other States--when the virus is spreading and there is a crisis in that nursing home because of the virus, you might need more help. You may need more doctors or nurses or certified nurse's assistants or so many other critical personnel in that nursing home. So $20 billion is a good down payment on protecting Americans in nursing homes. Our bill would do that. I am grateful for the help of Senator Whitehouse, as well as so many other Members of the Senate who joined in that bill. Unfortunately, the bill proposed--I guess it was July 27 or one of the last days of July. Unfortunately, the bill proposed by the majority has no meaningful investment in these best practices. We have to ask ourselves: Is this what America is going to settle for, that the greatest country in the history of the world is going to throw up our hands and say: There is really nothing we can do. It is a pernicious virus and the virus is spreading in congregate care settings like nursing homes, where you have individuals who are particularly vulnerable. So there is not much we can do. That is a defeatist, anti-American attitude. We know we can get these numbers down if we make the investment. The America that we claim to be would have a full-court press, a pull-out-all-the-stops effort to make sure that we get these numbers down. I don't think most Americans believe that we should throw up our hands and surrender to another 62,000-plus deaths a couple of months from now, which is where we could be headed if we don't take these steps. No one would assert that we can get these numbers down to zero or that there is some magic wand that will allow us to remove this threat from those we love so much in these nursing homes. But, my God, in America we are not going to take steps we know will work to get the case number down and the death number down? I think America is ready for an action plan that has been developed here in the United States by smart people who know how to attack this problem. So issue No. 1 is the most at-risk Americans. The second issue in terms of at-risk Americans is older Americans and people with disabilities who need the benefit of home and community-based services. Again, the Republican bill proposed by the majority here in the Senate doesn't mention Medicaid. In order to attack the nursing home issue--the nursing home death problem--or to invest in home and community-based services, we need to invest in Medicaid. We must stabilize and strengthen home and community-based services to keep older adults and people with disabilities both safe and healthy. To do that, you have to pay the workers more. The workers should be paid a living wage. When those workers are going into a home to provide that critical care, they should be provided the personal protective equipment that they need to keep themselves safe and also that person with a disability or a senior, if someone is coming into their home. Without sufficient dollars, human service organizations cannot recruit and retain the direct support professionals and personal care attendants who provide essential healthcare and community inclusion services for seniors and people with disabilities. This is just one example, among many. This is a picture of Marisa. She is from Allegheny County, PA. You can see by the picture--you may not see it from a distance--that the T-shirt says: ``Proud to Be Your Neighbor.'' You can barely read the words: ``Giant Eagle.'' That is one of the great supermarket chains in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Marisa uses home and community-based services to live independently. She is a volunteer at a food pantry and works at one of the Giant Eagle grocery stores and has done that work for 19 years. All these years later, she is one of the beneficiaries of this program. She can get services in the home and in her community. The key to this is that without dedicated dollars, agencies like Achieva, one of the many agencies that does this work and provides such services--these agencies will not be able to provide services that people with disabilities like Marisa and families like hers need. Pennsylvania, like many States, has so-called centers for independent living. They told me just last week on a phone call that as for helping people move from a nursing home or a congregate care setting, where often the risk is higher with the virus, often their ability to move people from that setting who want to go into a home or an apartment is fully dependent on the dollars from the funding they have. They have been able to move some people, but very few because they don't have the funding to move them. Another implication of this concern we have is that the direct service providers have scaled back these services. Most don't have enough cash reserve for longer than a month because of the lack of funding. Just imagine that. I introduced a bill 4 months ago, S. 3544, which provided dedicated dollars to respond to this crisis. But it wasn't until the HEROES Act passed by the House--not yet passed by the Senate, but passed by the House 10 weeks ago--included provisions of my bill, which was supported here in the Senate by 28 Senators. I have just two more issues. One is Medicaid and the other issue I will address is on the liability debate. Of course, we know what the Medicaid program is. It has been around since 1965. Medicaid is the program that helps 75 million Americans. If you add up the children on Medicaid, which is about 31 million children, and people with disabilities, which is another 9 million, you have roughly 40 of the 75 million. Medicaid is not just a program. It is a program that saves lives, maybe even more so in the middle of a public health emergency that we have been in all these months. Medicaid is also, I believe, a reflection of who we are as a nation. I think it also reflects whom we value. That is why Medicaid is so critical to seniors living in nursing homes who are sometimes from relatively middle-class families who could not afford long-term care. Many Americans with disabilities--as I mentioned, 9 million at last count, and of course, 31 million children--many of them live in rural Pennsylvania, in rural America. In fact, if you look at it by percentage, it is often the case that in rural counties, there is a higher percentage of children on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a higher percentage in a rural county than children in a county that has a lot of urban communities in it. So rural and small town America depend heavily upon Medicaid. They depend upon Medicaid in another way when you consider rural hospitals. Often the largest employer in a rural county in Pennsylvania--or the second or third largest employer at least--is a rural hospital. We have 48 of our 67 counties that are rural, and in those 48 rural counties, more than half of the top employers in the county are hospitals--or I should say the top or the second or third highest employers. So, of the top three employers in the most rural counties, you have a hospital--and Medicaid is so vital to those rural hospitals--operating on a thin margin and is evermore stressed in a pandemic. Medicaid expansion, of course, made it possible for millions of Americans to get healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, and we just saw yesterday, in the State of Missouri, the vote there to expand Medicaid. It has been happening in a lot of States that may not have embraced Medicaid expansion a number of years ago but that are now embracing it. Medicaid is a safety net in this time of crisis, in terms of the economic and jobs crisis we are living through. It, of course, impacts State budgets. One of the biggest expenditures in State budgets is Medicaid. For example, in our State of Pennsylvania, our unemployment rate in June was 13 percent, and there were 821,000 people out of work. In some counties, the unemployment rate is 14 percent or 15 percent or 16 percent or 17 percent. So, when 821,000 people are out of work in a State, a lot of them have lost their healthcare, and they have turned to Medicaid. Now, in the Families First bill, way back in the early part of March, the matching dollars--the so-called FMAP, which means the Federal matching dollars for Medicaid--were increased by 6.2 percent. That was a good step in the right direction, but Governors in blue and red States will tell you now, as a lot of other people will tell you now, they need an additional increase in Medicaid. I think the 14 percent FMAP, or matching dollar percentage, in the Heroes Act in the House made a lot of sense. I hope we can get to that number in the bill we are considering or we hope to be considering soon. The Republican bill does not have additional dollars for Medicaid, matching dollars, despite the fact that many of the Republican Governors around the country have asked for this kind of help. So I hope that will change as the negotiations move forward. I want to end on time if I can, maybe in the next 10 minutes. That is the goal. Finally, I want to talk about the liability shield issue. There are a lot of different perspectives on this. Let me talk about it in the context of those we are discussing tonight--seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities who need home- and community-based services, folks who are in communities of color, and others who need the benefit of Medicaid. In my judgment, the Republicans' proposal, when you look at the liability proposal, would slam the doors of justice on those who want to bring an action. We have had a lot of commentary lately about our criminal justice system and its defects, its shortcomings, and even about the racism that, I believe, permeates that system. In this context, we are talking about the civil justice system. What do we do about that part of our justice system--the ability for a citizen to bring an action in a court of law to deal with an injury of some kind either by way of negligence or intentional conduct? In this context, we have a proposal by the majority to short-circuit, to undermine, that system of justice. It will affect those we are here to talk about tonight in very real ways whether they are low-income workers or people with disabilities or older adults or even, more broadly, essential workers. Why do I say that? If you are going to use a crisis like we are in now to try to achieve gains that some in this Chamber have tried to achieve for years in the so-called tort system--really, the civil justice system--and you paint with a very broad brush, you are going to slam those doors of justice pretty tightly. Just by way of comment from a Georgetown law professor, David Vladeck, in reference to this proposal, he recently explained the ``extreme reach'' of the proposal vastly exceeds ``any prior `tort reform' bills that have been introduced in Congress.'' He went on to call this corporate liability shield provision ``essentially impenetrable.'' That is how he described the strength of this shield. He warned that such proposals would give ``license for irresponsible and reckless conduct.'' When it comes to liability, it would also preempt all State laws requiring businesses to act reasonably. It would impose a heightened--so-called--clear and convincing burden of proof on plaintiffs instead of the typical preponderance-of-the-evidence standard We know that in our system, in a civil case, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is the lowest standard. Just a little more than 50 percent of the jury would have to make the determination in terms of liability. We know that, in the criminal system, in order to find guilt, it has to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard. There are some cases that are given the middle standard of--so-called--clear and convincing. That burden of proof is right in the middle. In a civil lawsuit, this bill would elevate it from a preponderance to clear and convincing, which would be, I think, a step in the wrong direction. The proposal would also force a worker, a consumer, a resident of a nursing home, or even a patient to show that a business failed to make ``reasonable efforts'' to comply with any applicable government standard. The issue here is that the Federal Government hasn't issued any mandatory standards. So these entities--many of them employers of one kind or another, sometimes very large employers--would be able to follow any standard they would choose. They could choose a local standard or a State standard or a Federal standard even if the one they were to choose would be the weakest standard as it relates to the protection of the worker. What the administration could have done, which I called for and many Members of the Senate called for, would have been to have promulgated a standard against which the actions of an employer could be measured. One idea was to promulgate an emergency temporary standard. I don't know why the Department of Labor wouldn't do that in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century--why the Department of Labor would not simply take that step. That would give clarity to employers. That would give clarity to so many Americans about what the standard would be in a workplace to keep people safe from a raging virus, but they chose not to do that. Without any mandatory standards, it is wide open. Then we are supposed to believe that taking away the right to bring an action is somehow going to be just fine for a period of time. An emergency temporary standard by the Department of Labor should have been promulgated months ago, and it could still do it and remove the uncertainty--the lack of clarity--that prevails right now. With regard to the liability provisions, this bill would immunize healthcare providers and facilities from any claims arising from ``coronavirus-related healthcare services.'' That is pretty broad. How does the bill define that? The bill defines that as follows: the treatment of patients ``for any purpose,'' not merely the treatment of COVID-19 patients during this public health emergency. That is about as broad as it gets, and that impenetrable liability shield would be in place for several years. It gets worse when it comes to people with disabilities. To add insult to injury, just consider what we did last week. Our Nation celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act--a law that extends civil rights protections to people with disabilities in every State. President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law, and Republicans and Democrats and Independents all over the country celebrated its 30th anniversary. Literally, the next day, the majority proposed this corporate liability shield, which would blow a hole in the protections provided by the so-called ADA after the celebration of 30 years. That bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act, makes it possible for people with disabilities to be full participants in American society, but this corporate liability shield would undermine those very protections. It would decimate Federal protections granted under other landmark employment and civil rights laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the so-called ADEA; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is one of the seminal actions, or pieces of legislation, to protect workers. It would also adversely impact the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't know how you could have more of a wrecking ball in place for these landmark pieces of legislation in the middle of a pandemic. I will wrap up by saying that we have a lot of work to do, obviously, in these negotiations. In the midst of the negotiations, we ought to be thinking about the most vulnerable, whether they be older Americans, children, people with disabilities, or folks in communities of color, who have been adversely impacted in so many ways and evermore so in this time of crisis. I will not enter into it the Record, because it will be in the Record anyway, but I am holding in my hand a letter that we sent to Leader McConnell that outlines all of these concerns. It is a letter, led by Senator Duckworth from Illinois, Senator Warren from Massachusetts, and me, as well as now more than 40 of our colleagues, which goes through these concerns that we have for investments in strategies to get the nursing home death number down and for investments in home- and community-based services. It goes through the concerns we raised about the corporate liability shield, as well as about an overdue investment in Medicaid, which is the program that takes care of the most vulnerable among us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4915 | null | 1,136 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I am speaking tonight on behalf of the millions of Americans living with disabilities, and on behalf of the many more who, whether they know it or not, are just 1 day, one accident, one devastating medical diagnosis away from acquiring a disability as well. I come to the floor on their behalf because I came to the floor by rolling through the Capitol's corridors in the wheelchair you see me sitting on now, and I could come to the floor because 30 years ago, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, granting millions of Americans like me better access to the full, independent lives we deserve. That landmark legislation only passed because of the dedicated activists who proudly crowded in front of this building in 1990 to demand that their country finally give those with disabilities the basic rights the Constitution provided. It only became law because dozens of them got out of their wheelchairs, set down their crutches, and crawled up the 83 steps of the Capitol Building--because Jennifer Keelan, an 8-year-old with cerebral palsy, pulled herself to the top of the steps, saying, ``I'll take all night if I have to,'' and because those around her refused to leave a fellow American behind, offering Jennifer support when she needed it, one step, one shoulder to lean on at a time. Thirty years ago, these activists changed Senators' hearts, minds, and, most importantly, votes. Thirty years ago, this legislative body said that people like me mattered. But last week, Republicans in this Chamber proposed a bill that said we don't. I speak out of a sense of frustration as I watch my Republican colleagues, including the ones who once championed the ADA, attempt to reconstruct, brick by brick, the shameful wall of exclusion that Congress sought to tear down three decades ago. Less than a week after celebrating the 30th anniversary of a Republican President declaring that the ADA would bring us ``closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' Senate Republicans have put forward legislation that threatens to deprive our community of those same fundamental rights. Many interpreted the timing of the HEALS Act as confirmation of an alarming fact: The GOP has declared war on the disability community and the ADA. I truly hope this is not the case and that the timing was a deeply unfortunate coincidence, but at the end of the day, actions speak far louder than words. If Senate Republicans want to demonstrate that they value life, that they value the civil rights of all Americans, they must join Democrats in supporting two measures that would show the disability community that their party actually gives a darn about them. First, we need to save lives by preventing mass institutionalization. Placing individuals with disabilities into congregate care facilities where the risks of serious illness or death are high is reckless and unacceptable. To achieve this goal, we must increase the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentages, the FMAP, by 10 percent for Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services. Republicans and Democratic Governors alike desperately need this change. The House already passed this 10 percent FMAP increase months ago, and the Senate must follow suit in any COVID-19 relief deal that is reached. Real-world experience has tragically demonstrated how vulnerable congregate care settings are to deadly superspreader events like COVID-19. We know from existing data that Americans with intellectual and developmental disabilities are killed at far higher rates than other Americans when infected with COVID-19. So investing in State efforts to provide Medicaid services to vulnerable populations in the safety of their own homes is just a commonsense policy that would save countless lives. Second, Senate Republicans must abandon efforts to gut the ADA, once and for all. Disability rights are human rights, and these civil rights must never become optional benefits that can be taken away whenever it is convenient or cheaper for employers or those who are in power. Allowing businesses to exclude employees with disabilities from reopening plans is exactly the type of discrimination that the ADA sought to abolish. Yet the GOP HEALS Act seeks to relegate millions of Americans back to second-class status, sending the offensive message that our community can be cast aside if the cost to companies are too high. But the harsh reality is that these efforts are anything but new. Decades ago, when my friend Judy Heumann passed her exams to earn a teaching license, she was nevertheless denied the license by the school board all because of so-called concerns about legal liability in the workplace They said that because Judy used a wheelchair, she represented a fire hazard and could not safely teach in a classroom. Do these types of concerns sound familiar? The passage of the ADA was supposed to relegate such workplace discrimination stories to the history books. Those outrageous examples of injustice were supposed to represent the nightmares of yesterday, not the reality of tomorrow made possible by a Republican proposal today. Yet here we are in 2020, and Senate Republicans are shamelessly using a deadly pandemic as cover to gut the ADA and hoist that brick wall of exclusion right back up. No one is asking for special treatment. What we are asking for is to not take away the basic rights the Constitution promised all those centuries ago and this Chamber affirmed three decades ago under a Republican President. So as we debate this next relief package, the questions that every Member of this body must ask are simple: Are we going to leave Americans with disabilities behind? Are their lives worth saving? Are their jobs expendable? For anyone with a conscience--for anyone with any ounce of compassion or even just a lick of respect for the rule of law, the answer to those questions should be obvious. You know, in the Army our Soldier's Creed included never leaving a fallen comrade behind. I am alive today because my buddies in Iraq risked their lives to recover my body because they thought I was dead and refused to leave me behind. The activists who crawled their way up the Capitol steps did much the same for each other: helping one another make their way up inch by inch, closer to the Chamber I am sitting in right now, refusing to let any one of them struggle--to let any one of them fall behind. I am on the floor tonight because of those two acts of courage from two different groups of people continents away and a decade and a half apart. Now, as a Senator, my North Star is paying that debt of honor forward and trying to live up to the sacrifices they made for others. So today and tomorrow and the tomorrow after that, you better believe I am going to keep fighting to hold the Senate accountable for living up to the motto of the Nation we serve: ``E Pluribus Unum,'' Out of Many, One, because this country was born on that idea. It was born from the phrase ``We the People.'' And it grew out of the belief that there is nothing more powerful than the will of the citizenry when the citizenry works with each other and for each other. Our response to this pandemic is a test of our faith in that Founding doctrine. If we focus on the ``we''--if we think about uniting the many into the one--then we can save lives and move past this national trauma together. But it is up to each one of us to act in a way that protects all of us, to act in a way that ensures no one, nobody, disabled or otherwise, will be left behind. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. DUCKWORTH | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4920 | null | 1,137 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I am speaking tonight on behalf of the millions of Americans living with disabilities, and on behalf of the many more who, whether they know it or not, are just 1 day, one accident, one devastating medical diagnosis away from acquiring a disability as well. I come to the floor on their behalf because I came to the floor by rolling through the Capitol's corridors in the wheelchair you see me sitting on now, and I could come to the floor because 30 years ago, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, granting millions of Americans like me better access to the full, independent lives we deserve. That landmark legislation only passed because of the dedicated activists who proudly crowded in front of this building in 1990 to demand that their country finally give those with disabilities the basic rights the Constitution provided. It only became law because dozens of them got out of their wheelchairs, set down their crutches, and crawled up the 83 steps of the Capitol Building--because Jennifer Keelan, an 8-year-old with cerebral palsy, pulled herself to the top of the steps, saying, ``I'll take all night if I have to,'' and because those around her refused to leave a fellow American behind, offering Jennifer support when she needed it, one step, one shoulder to lean on at a time. Thirty years ago, these activists changed Senators' hearts, minds, and, most importantly, votes. Thirty years ago, this legislative body said that people like me mattered. But last week, Republicans in this Chamber proposed a bill that said we don't. I speak out of a sense of frustration as I watch my Republican colleagues, including the ones who once championed the ADA, attempt to reconstruct, brick by brick, the shameful wall of exclusion that Congress sought to tear down three decades ago. Less than a week after celebrating the 30th anniversary of a Republican President declaring that the ADA would bring us ``closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' Senate Republicans have put forward legislation that threatens to deprive our community of those same fundamental rights. Many interpreted the timing of the HEALS Act as confirmation of an alarming fact: The GOP has declared war on the disability community and the ADA. I truly hope this is not the case and that the timing was a deeply unfortunate coincidence, but at the end of the day, actions speak far louder than words. If Senate Republicans want to demonstrate that they value life, that they value the civil rights of all Americans, they must join Democrats in supporting two measures that would show the disability community that their party actually gives a darn about them. First, we need to save lives by preventing mass institutionalization. Placing individuals with disabilities into congregate care facilities where the risks of serious illness or death are high is reckless and unacceptable. To achieve this goal, we must increase the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentages, the FMAP, by 10 percent for Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services. Republicans and Democratic Governors alike desperately need this change. The House already passed this 10 percent FMAP increase months ago, and the Senate must follow suit in any COVID-19 relief deal that is reached. Real-world experience has tragically demonstrated how vulnerable congregate care settings are to deadly superspreader events like COVID-19. We know from existing data that Americans with intellectual and developmental disabilities are killed at far higher rates than other Americans when infected with COVID-19. So investing in State efforts to provide Medicaid services to vulnerable populations in the safety of their own homes is just a commonsense policy that would save countless lives. Second, Senate Republicans must abandon efforts to gut the ADA, once and for all. Disability rights are human rights, and these civil rights must never become optional benefits that can be taken away whenever it is convenient or cheaper for employers or those who are in power. Allowing businesses to exclude employees with disabilities from reopening plans is exactly the type of discrimination that the ADA sought to abolish. Yet the GOP HEALS Act seeks to relegate millions of Americans back to second-class status, sending the offensive message that our community can be cast aside if the cost to companies are too high. But the harsh reality is that these efforts are anything but new. Decades ago, when my friend Judy Heumann passed her exams to earn a teaching license, she was nevertheless denied the license by the school board all because of so-called concerns about legal liability in the workplace They said that because Judy used a wheelchair, she represented a fire hazard and could not safely teach in a classroom. Do these types of concerns sound familiar? The passage of the ADA was supposed to relegate such workplace discrimination stories to the history books. Those outrageous examples of injustice were supposed to represent the nightmares of yesterday, not the reality of tomorrow made possible by a Republican proposal today. Yet here we are in 2020, and Senate Republicans are shamelessly using a deadly pandemic as cover to gut the ADA and hoist that brick wall of exclusion right back up. No one is asking for special treatment. What we are asking for is to not take away the basic rights the Constitution promised all those centuries ago and this Chamber affirmed three decades ago under a Republican President. So as we debate this next relief package, the questions that every Member of this body must ask are simple: Are we going to leave Americans with disabilities behind? Are their lives worth saving? Are their jobs expendable? For anyone with a conscience--for anyone with any ounce of compassion or even just a lick of respect for the rule of law, the answer to those questions should be obvious. You know, in the Army our Soldier's Creed included never leaving a fallen comrade behind. I am alive today because my buddies in Iraq risked their lives to recover my body because they thought I was dead and refused to leave me behind. The activists who crawled their way up the Capitol steps did much the same for each other: helping one another make their way up inch by inch, closer to the Chamber I am sitting in right now, refusing to let any one of them struggle--to let any one of them fall behind. I am on the floor tonight because of those two acts of courage from two different groups of people continents away and a decade and a half apart. Now, as a Senator, my North Star is paying that debt of honor forward and trying to live up to the sacrifices they made for others. So today and tomorrow and the tomorrow after that, you better believe I am going to keep fighting to hold the Senate accountable for living up to the motto of the Nation we serve: ``E Pluribus Unum,'' Out of Many, One, because this country was born on that idea. It was born from the phrase ``We the People.'' And it grew out of the belief that there is nothing more powerful than the will of the citizenry when the citizenry works with each other and for each other. Our response to this pandemic is a test of our faith in that Founding doctrine. If we focus on the ``we''--if we think about uniting the many into the one--then we can save lives and move past this national trauma together. But it is up to each one of us to act in a way that protects all of us, to act in a way that ensures no one, nobody, disabled or otherwise, will be left behind. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. DUCKWORTH | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4920 | null | 1,138 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Putnam ``Put'' Blodgett's lifetime of service to the Vermont forest industry deserves special recognition. Put personified the essence, values, and traditions of what makes Vermont special. Put's family moved to a Bradford, VT, dairy farm during the height of the Great Depression. He attended Dartmouth College and returned home in 1953 to work on the family farm, which he eventually took over and continued to steward with his wife and children. Put left the dairy business for other endeavors but maintained his connection to the family land, working tirelessly to restore and manage its 700-acre wood lot. Always focused on long-term sustainable management, Put placed the acreage in conservation with the Upper Valley Land Trust, preserving the forest for all generations. Put's son now manages the forest, continuing that legacy. Put and his wife, Marilyn, ran the Challenge Wilderness Camp, teaching children about nature and guiding them on wilderness pursuits. Children would travel from cities to live in an Adirondack shelter, cook over an open fire, learn to canoe, and explore the forest. Put's goal was to assist young people on their journey to adulthood, cultivating their connection with the natural world. Watching our own children and grandchildren play in woods and fields of our farm in Middlesex, VT, Marcelle and I know how crucial it is for children to have the experience in nature that Put and Marilyn provided to so many. A true leader in Vermont's conservation and forestry community, Put was the longstanding president of Vermont Woodlands Association and oversaw the Tree Farm Program. He was recognized twice as Vermont's Outstanding Tree Farmer of the Year. Our farm in Middlesex has been enrolled in the Tree Farm Program for about 30 years, and I am deeply appreciative of the value the program has brought to my land and to Vermont. Forest management discussions can be a tense tug-of-war between environmentalism and timber management, but Put didn't see it that way. He understood conservation as a shared priority--a public and private good alike--and he worked to unite divergent stakeholders around this common interest. I looked to Put for advice when writing Vermont wilderness legislation and Put was a founding member of the Vermont Natural Resources Council's Forest Roundtable, an open forum for Vermonters to exchange information and recommend conservation policy. On many occasions, Put helped opposing sides find that elusive common ground on forest management policy. Putnam Blodgett, as any true forester, worked with a mission to be accomplished on a timeframe much longer than his own life span or a single generation. Put passed away earlier this year, and yet I take comfort knowing that the Green Mountains of Vermont are better for his work here. To the great benefit of my grandchildren and many generations to come, Put's legacy lives in the Northern Forest. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4936 | null | 1,139 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I support the referral for a committee hearing of the nominations of Frank Dunlevy, Christopher Bancroft Burnham, and John M. Barger to be Members of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4938 | null | 1,140 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2020, at 2 p.m. to meet in Executive Session to vote on the following nominations: The Honorable Hester Peirce, of Ohio, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Mrs. Caroline Crenshaw, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Mr. Kyle Hauptman, of Maine, to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board. committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2020, at 10 a.m. the committee will hold a full committee hearing titled ``Oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.'' committee on energy and natural resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Wednesday, August 5, 2020, at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to examine Federal and industry efforts to improve cyber security for the energy sector, including how to improve collaboration on various cyber security and critical infrastructure protection initiatives. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4976 | null | 1,141 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2020, at 2 p.m. to meet in Executive Session to vote on the following nominations: The Honorable Hester Peirce, of Ohio, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Mrs. Caroline Crenshaw, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Mr. Kyle Hauptman, of Maine, to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board. committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2020, at 10 a.m. the committee will hold a full committee hearing titled ``Oversight of the Federal Trade Commission.'' committee on energy and natural resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Wednesday, August 5, 2020, at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to examine Federal and industry efforts to improve cyber security for the energy sector, including how to improve collaboration on various cyber security and critical infrastructure protection initiatives. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-05-pt1-PgS4976 | null | 1,142 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been 1 week since Senate Democrats forced the additional Federal benefit for jobless Americans to expire. Senate Republicans tried everything to prevent the lapse. That Monday, we rolled out a comprehensive proposal for another rescue package that would have kept extra Federal benefits flowing. The Democrats refused to act, so we tried to force the issue. One of our Senators requested unanimous consent to continue these benefits through the end of the year at a still historically generous level. This plan would have also corrected the bizarre choice facing American workers whom the system was actually paying more to stay home than to resume working, but that wasn't good enough for the Democratic leader, and he objected. Another Republican Senator then asked unanimous consent to extend Federal support exactly as it had been for 1 more week so that jobless Americans didn't have to bear the cost of the Democrats' leisurely negotiating pace. Once again, the Democratic leader objected. Finally, Republicans forced a floor vote to demonstrate whether Senators were even willing to debate the issue, whether Senators would even consider extending these benefits, and every single Democrat present voted no. The week since then has seen plenty of talk and plenty of stalling from the Democratic leaders, who have insisted on handling this themselves--but no significant movement toward progress. They have still kept their ranking members and more reasonable voices locked up. The Speaker and the Democratic leader continue to obstruct the kinds of committee-level discussions that delivered the CARES Act, which are no longer in style. Only they are allowed to speak. Only they among theDemocrats are allowed to have an opinion. Day after day, they have stonewalled the President's team. Day by day, they have tried to invent new euphemisms to create the illusion of progress. Yesterday's contribution from the Speaker was this: There is now a light at the end of the tunnel, but ``how long that tunnel is remains to be seen.'' Well, there are a lot of struggling Americans who could tell Speaker Pelosi exactly how long this tunnel has been and that it will continue to be endless unless the Democrats let us provide more relief to the country. Their second week of inaction has brought the country to a second cliff in coronavirus aid. Last week, it was the extra Federal benefit for laid-off workers. This week, it is the enormously popular Paycheck Protection Program that has kept millions more Americans off the unemployment rolls in the first place. The PPP was written and designed in March by Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins as Main Street America was hurtling toward a cliff. Their innovative policy has saved small businesses on a massive scale. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out in emergency loans to more than 600,000 small businesses. I hear constantly from Kentuckians whose local businesses and whose jobs would not have survived the last several months without this program. From distilleries to medical device suppliers to domestic violence advocates, the PPP has helped community institutions weather the storm and keep more Kentuckians on the payroll. This emergency program hasn't been perfect, but it has been a huge, huge success. It has remained a success because, back in April, we finally got the Democrats to let us provide another wave of funding after a pointless delay and pointless brinksmanship--you may detect a pattern here--but now many of these businesses are reaching the ends of their ropes. Their PPP money is dwindling, but since the virus remains with us, even where shutdown orders have been lifted, commerce has not roared all the way back. One survey found that one in four workers who were hired back and kept getting paid because of the PPP has now been warned he might be let go again, and you can bet that number will increase. Here is how one business owner explained the looming danger to reporters: ``If there isn't another round of stimulus, we'll start cutting past the fat and to the bone, and that's our people, and our people are hard to replace.'' Congress should be strengthening the PPP. Instead, the Democrats have put it in jeopardy. This Saturday, August 8, is the official deadline for anyone who hasn't yet gotten a loan to apply. The door closes the day after tomorrow, and many firms that did receive the assistance are getting nearer to the bottom of the well. This is why the Senate Republicans' blueprint for another major rescue package would put $190 billion into a second draw of the PPP for the businesses that most need help. The House Democrats' $3 trillion wish list totally left that out. They ignored the PPP. We want to re-up it This is just one of the many ways our serious proposal beats the absurd far-left wish list the Democrats' own moderate Members laughed out of the room. While they focus on unrelated liberal demands, like tax cuts for rich people in blue States, we are focused on serious solutions for the problems facing Americans right now. Yet, instead of getting serious, the Democratic leaders have chosen, instead, to misrepresent and even lie about what is at stake. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections that the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. Let me say that again. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. He doesn't even seem to realize that we modeled our medical malpractice reforms on the COVID-related protections that his fellow Democrats put in place in New York. So this is where we are--another week that the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader have spent stonewalling the President's team in talks and holding out for ideological pet projects with no relationship whatsoever to the COVID crisis. Now, as a result, struggling Americans are facing another cliff, with another important form of relief on its last legs. We face a second straight week of political theater from our Democratic colleagues with no result--except more pain for families, more uncertainty for workers, and more evidence to suggest that perhaps the Democratic leaders were never serious about getting something accomplished in the first place. All across America, small business owners are hurting and hoping the Democrats get reasonable and allow another major package to move forward. Unemployed Americans need these endless talks to finally bear fruit, and so do school principals and working parents and senior citizens and nurses and doctors and university presidents and students of all ages. That is why I will not be adjourning the Senate for our August recess today as had been previously scheduled. I have told Republican Senators they will have 24-hours' notice before a vote, but the Senate will be convening on Monday, and I will be right here in Washington. The House has already skipped town, but the Senate will not adjourn for August unless and until the Democrats demonstrate they will never let an agreement materialize. A lot of Americans' hopes--a lot of American lives--are riding on the Democrats' endless talk. I hope they are not disappointed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5229-8 | null | 1,143 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been 1 week since Senate Democrats forced the additional Federal benefit for jobless Americans to expire. Senate Republicans tried everything to prevent the lapse. That Monday, we rolled out a comprehensive proposal for another rescue package that would have kept extra Federal benefits flowing. The Democrats refused to act, so we tried to force the issue. One of our Senators requested unanimous consent to continue these benefits through the end of the year at a still historically generous level. This plan would have also corrected the bizarre choice facing American workers whom the system was actually paying more to stay home than to resume working, but that wasn't good enough for the Democratic leader, and he objected. Another Republican Senator then asked unanimous consent to extend Federal support exactly as it had been for 1 more week so that jobless Americans didn't have to bear the cost of the Democrats' leisurely negotiating pace. Once again, the Democratic leader objected. Finally, Republicans forced a floor vote to demonstrate whether Senators were even willing to debate the issue, whether Senators would even consider extending these benefits, and every single Democrat present voted no. The week since then has seen plenty of talk and plenty of stalling from the Democratic leaders, who have insisted on handling this themselves--but no significant movement toward progress. They have still kept their ranking members and more reasonable voices locked up. The Speaker and the Democratic leader continue to obstruct the kinds of committee-level discussions that delivered the CARES Act, which are no longer in style. Only they are allowed to speak. Only they among theDemocrats are allowed to have an opinion. Day after day, they have stonewalled the President's team. Day by day, they have tried to invent new euphemisms to create the illusion of progress. Yesterday's contribution from the Speaker was this: There is now a light at the end of the tunnel, but ``how long that tunnel is remains to be seen.'' Well, there are a lot of struggling Americans who could tell Speaker Pelosi exactly how long this tunnel has been and that it will continue to be endless unless the Democrats let us provide more relief to the country. Their second week of inaction has brought the country to a second cliff in coronavirus aid. Last week, it was the extra Federal benefit for laid-off workers. This week, it is the enormously popular Paycheck Protection Program that has kept millions more Americans off the unemployment rolls in the first place. The PPP was written and designed in March by Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins as Main Street America was hurtling toward a cliff. Their innovative policy has saved small businesses on a massive scale. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out in emergency loans to more than 600,000 small businesses. I hear constantly from Kentuckians whose local businesses and whose jobs would not have survived the last several months without this program. From distilleries to medical device suppliers to domestic violence advocates, the PPP has helped community institutions weather the storm and keep more Kentuckians on the payroll. This emergency program hasn't been perfect, but it has been a huge, huge success. It has remained a success because, back in April, we finally got the Democrats to let us provide another wave of funding after a pointless delay and pointless brinksmanship--you may detect a pattern here--but now many of these businesses are reaching the ends of their ropes. Their PPP money is dwindling, but since the virus remains with us, even where shutdown orders have been lifted, commerce has not roared all the way back. One survey found that one in four workers who were hired back and kept getting paid because of the PPP has now been warned he might be let go again, and you can bet that number will increase. Here is how one business owner explained the looming danger to reporters: ``If there isn't another round of stimulus, we'll start cutting past the fat and to the bone, and that's our people, and our people are hard to replace.'' Congress should be strengthening the PPP. Instead, the Democrats have put it in jeopardy. This Saturday, August 8, is the official deadline for anyone who hasn't yet gotten a loan to apply. The door closes the day after tomorrow, and many firms that did receive the assistance are getting nearer to the bottom of the well. This is why the Senate Republicans' blueprint for another major rescue package would put $190 billion into a second draw of the PPP for the businesses that most need help. The House Democrats' $3 trillion wish list totally left that out. They ignored the PPP. We want to re-up it This is just one of the many ways our serious proposal beats the absurd far-left wish list the Democrats' own moderate Members laughed out of the room. While they focus on unrelated liberal demands, like tax cuts for rich people in blue States, we are focused on serious solutions for the problems facing Americans right now. Yet, instead of getting serious, the Democratic leaders have chosen, instead, to misrepresent and even lie about what is at stake. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections that the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. Let me say that again. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. He doesn't even seem to realize that we modeled our medical malpractice reforms on the COVID-related protections that his fellow Democrats put in place in New York. So this is where we are--another week that the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader have spent stonewalling the President's team in talks and holding out for ideological pet projects with no relationship whatsoever to the COVID crisis. Now, as a result, struggling Americans are facing another cliff, with another important form of relief on its last legs. We face a second straight week of political theater from our Democratic colleagues with no result--except more pain for families, more uncertainty for workers, and more evidence to suggest that perhaps the Democratic leaders were never serious about getting something accomplished in the first place. All across America, small business owners are hurting and hoping the Democrats get reasonable and allow another major package to move forward. Unemployed Americans need these endless talks to finally bear fruit, and so do school principals and working parents and senior citizens and nurses and doctors and university presidents and students of all ages. That is why I will not be adjourning the Senate for our August recess today as had been previously scheduled. I have told Republican Senators they will have 24-hours' notice before a vote, but the Senate will be convening on Monday, and I will be right here in Washington. The House has already skipped town, but the Senate will not adjourn for August unless and until the Democrats demonstrate they will never let an agreement materialize. A lot of Americans' hopes--a lot of American lives--are riding on the Democrats' endless talk. I hope they are not disappointed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5229-8 | null | 1,144 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been 1 week since Senate Democrats forced the additional Federal benefit for jobless Americans to expire. Senate Republicans tried everything to prevent the lapse. That Monday, we rolled out a comprehensive proposal for another rescue package that would have kept extra Federal benefits flowing. The Democrats refused to act, so we tried to force the issue. One of our Senators requested unanimous consent to continue these benefits through the end of the year at a still historically generous level. This plan would have also corrected the bizarre choice facing American workers whom the system was actually paying more to stay home than to resume working, but that wasn't good enough for the Democratic leader, and he objected. Another Republican Senator then asked unanimous consent to extend Federal support exactly as it had been for 1 more week so that jobless Americans didn't have to bear the cost of the Democrats' leisurely negotiating pace. Once again, the Democratic leader objected. Finally, Republicans forced a floor vote to demonstrate whether Senators were even willing to debate the issue, whether Senators would even consider extending these benefits, and every single Democrat present voted no. The week since then has seen plenty of talk and plenty of stalling from the Democratic leaders, who have insisted on handling this themselves--but no significant movement toward progress. They have still kept their ranking members and more reasonable voices locked up. The Speaker and the Democratic leader continue to obstruct the kinds of committee-level discussions that delivered the CARES Act, which are no longer in style. Only they are allowed to speak. Only they among theDemocrats are allowed to have an opinion. Day after day, they have stonewalled the President's team. Day by day, they have tried to invent new euphemisms to create the illusion of progress. Yesterday's contribution from the Speaker was this: There is now a light at the end of the tunnel, but ``how long that tunnel is remains to be seen.'' Well, there are a lot of struggling Americans who could tell Speaker Pelosi exactly how long this tunnel has been and that it will continue to be endless unless the Democrats let us provide more relief to the country. Their second week of inaction has brought the country to a second cliff in coronavirus aid. Last week, it was the extra Federal benefit for laid-off workers. This week, it is the enormously popular Paycheck Protection Program that has kept millions more Americans off the unemployment rolls in the first place. The PPP was written and designed in March by Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins as Main Street America was hurtling toward a cliff. Their innovative policy has saved small businesses on a massive scale. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out in emergency loans to more than 600,000 small businesses. I hear constantly from Kentuckians whose local businesses and whose jobs would not have survived the last several months without this program. From distilleries to medical device suppliers to domestic violence advocates, the PPP has helped community institutions weather the storm and keep more Kentuckians on the payroll. This emergency program hasn't been perfect, but it has been a huge, huge success. It has remained a success because, back in April, we finally got the Democrats to let us provide another wave of funding after a pointless delay and pointless brinksmanship--you may detect a pattern here--but now many of these businesses are reaching the ends of their ropes. Their PPP money is dwindling, but since the virus remains with us, even where shutdown orders have been lifted, commerce has not roared all the way back. One survey found that one in four workers who were hired back and kept getting paid because of the PPP has now been warned he might be let go again, and you can bet that number will increase. Here is how one business owner explained the looming danger to reporters: ``If there isn't another round of stimulus, we'll start cutting past the fat and to the bone, and that's our people, and our people are hard to replace.'' Congress should be strengthening the PPP. Instead, the Democrats have put it in jeopardy. This Saturday, August 8, is the official deadline for anyone who hasn't yet gotten a loan to apply. The door closes the day after tomorrow, and many firms that did receive the assistance are getting nearer to the bottom of the well. This is why the Senate Republicans' blueprint for another major rescue package would put $190 billion into a second draw of the PPP for the businesses that most need help. The House Democrats' $3 trillion wish list totally left that out. They ignored the PPP. We want to re-up it This is just one of the many ways our serious proposal beats the absurd far-left wish list the Democrats' own moderate Members laughed out of the room. While they focus on unrelated liberal demands, like tax cuts for rich people in blue States, we are focused on serious solutions for the problems facing Americans right now. Yet, instead of getting serious, the Democratic leaders have chosen, instead, to misrepresent and even lie about what is at stake. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections that the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. Let me say that again. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. He doesn't even seem to realize that we modeled our medical malpractice reforms on the COVID-related protections that his fellow Democrats put in place in New York. So this is where we are--another week that the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader have spent stonewalling the President's team in talks and holding out for ideological pet projects with no relationship whatsoever to the COVID crisis. Now, as a result, struggling Americans are facing another cliff, with another important form of relief on its last legs. We face a second straight week of political theater from our Democratic colleagues with no result--except more pain for families, more uncertainty for workers, and more evidence to suggest that perhaps the Democratic leaders were never serious about getting something accomplished in the first place. All across America, small business owners are hurting and hoping the Democrats get reasonable and allow another major package to move forward. Unemployed Americans need these endless talks to finally bear fruit, and so do school principals and working parents and senior citizens and nurses and doctors and university presidents and students of all ages. That is why I will not be adjourning the Senate for our August recess today as had been previously scheduled. I have told Republican Senators they will have 24-hours' notice before a vote, but the Senate will be convening on Monday, and I will be right here in Washington. The House has already skipped town, but the Senate will not adjourn for August unless and until the Democrats demonstrate they will never let an agreement materialize. A lot of Americans' hopes--a lot of American lives--are riding on the Democrats' endless talk. I hope they are not disappointed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5229-8 | null | 1,145 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been 1 week since Senate Democrats forced the additional Federal benefit for jobless Americans to expire. Senate Republicans tried everything to prevent the lapse. That Monday, we rolled out a comprehensive proposal for another rescue package that would have kept extra Federal benefits flowing. The Democrats refused to act, so we tried to force the issue. One of our Senators requested unanimous consent to continue these benefits through the end of the year at a still historically generous level. This plan would have also corrected the bizarre choice facing American workers whom the system was actually paying more to stay home than to resume working, but that wasn't good enough for the Democratic leader, and he objected. Another Republican Senator then asked unanimous consent to extend Federal support exactly as it had been for 1 more week so that jobless Americans didn't have to bear the cost of the Democrats' leisurely negotiating pace. Once again, the Democratic leader objected. Finally, Republicans forced a floor vote to demonstrate whether Senators were even willing to debate the issue, whether Senators would even consider extending these benefits, and every single Democrat present voted no. The week since then has seen plenty of talk and plenty of stalling from the Democratic leaders, who have insisted on handling this themselves--but no significant movement toward progress. They have still kept their ranking members and more reasonable voices locked up. The Speaker and the Democratic leader continue to obstruct the kinds of committee-level discussions that delivered the CARES Act, which are no longer in style. Only they are allowed to speak. Only they among theDemocrats are allowed to have an opinion. Day after day, they have stonewalled the President's team. Day by day, they have tried to invent new euphemisms to create the illusion of progress. Yesterday's contribution from the Speaker was this: There is now a light at the end of the tunnel, but ``how long that tunnel is remains to be seen.'' Well, there are a lot of struggling Americans who could tell Speaker Pelosi exactly how long this tunnel has been and that it will continue to be endless unless the Democrats let us provide more relief to the country. Their second week of inaction has brought the country to a second cliff in coronavirus aid. Last week, it was the extra Federal benefit for laid-off workers. This week, it is the enormously popular Paycheck Protection Program that has kept millions more Americans off the unemployment rolls in the first place. The PPP was written and designed in March by Chairman Rubio and Chairman Collins as Main Street America was hurtling toward a cliff. Their innovative policy has saved small businesses on a massive scale. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out in emergency loans to more than 600,000 small businesses. I hear constantly from Kentuckians whose local businesses and whose jobs would not have survived the last several months without this program. From distilleries to medical device suppliers to domestic violence advocates, the PPP has helped community institutions weather the storm and keep more Kentuckians on the payroll. This emergency program hasn't been perfect, but it has been a huge, huge success. It has remained a success because, back in April, we finally got the Democrats to let us provide another wave of funding after a pointless delay and pointless brinksmanship--you may detect a pattern here--but now many of these businesses are reaching the ends of their ropes. Their PPP money is dwindling, but since the virus remains with us, even where shutdown orders have been lifted, commerce has not roared all the way back. One survey found that one in four workers who were hired back and kept getting paid because of the PPP has now been warned he might be let go again, and you can bet that number will increase. Here is how one business owner explained the looming danger to reporters: ``If there isn't another round of stimulus, we'll start cutting past the fat and to the bone, and that's our people, and our people are hard to replace.'' Congress should be strengthening the PPP. Instead, the Democrats have put it in jeopardy. This Saturday, August 8, is the official deadline for anyone who hasn't yet gotten a loan to apply. The door closes the day after tomorrow, and many firms that did receive the assistance are getting nearer to the bottom of the well. This is why the Senate Republicans' blueprint for another major rescue package would put $190 billion into a second draw of the PPP for the businesses that most need help. The House Democrats' $3 trillion wish list totally left that out. They ignored the PPP. We want to re-up it This is just one of the many ways our serious proposal beats the absurd far-left wish list the Democrats' own moderate Members laughed out of the room. While they focus on unrelated liberal demands, like tax cuts for rich people in blue States, we are focused on serious solutions for the problems facing Americans right now. Yet, instead of getting serious, the Democratic leaders have chosen, instead, to misrepresent and even lie about what is at stake. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections that the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. Let me say that again. The Democratic leader's repeated misstatements about the legal protections the Senate Republicans and the White House want for schools, doctors, nurses, charities, and employers have earned him ``three Pinocchios'' from the Washington Post and a ``Mostly False'' rating from another fact-checker. He doesn't even seem to realize that we modeled our medical malpractice reforms on the COVID-related protections that his fellow Democrats put in place in New York. So this is where we are--another week that the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader have spent stonewalling the President's team in talks and holding out for ideological pet projects with no relationship whatsoever to the COVID crisis. Now, as a result, struggling Americans are facing another cliff, with another important form of relief on its last legs. We face a second straight week of political theater from our Democratic colleagues with no result--except more pain for families, more uncertainty for workers, and more evidence to suggest that perhaps the Democratic leaders were never serious about getting something accomplished in the first place. All across America, small business owners are hurting and hoping the Democrats get reasonable and allow another major package to move forward. Unemployed Americans need these endless talks to finally bear fruit, and so do school principals and working parents and senior citizens and nurses and doctors and university presidents and students of all ages. That is why I will not be adjourning the Senate for our August recess today as had been previously scheduled. I have told Republican Senators they will have 24-hours' notice before a vote, but the Senate will be convening on Monday, and I will be right here in Washington. The House has already skipped town, but the Senate will not adjourn for August unless and until the Democrats demonstrate they will never let an agreement materialize. A lot of Americans' hopes--a lot of American lives--are riding on the Democrats' endless talk. I hope they are not disappointed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5229-8 | null | 1,146 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Belarus Madam President, the other day, the Chicago Tribune ran a story with this moving headline: Her husband jailed, her kids sent away, a 37-year-old ex- teacher is running for president. She's trying to beat ``Europe's last dictator.'' The story went on to explain the courageous effort of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya to run for the election on August 9 in Belarus for President, where the country's strongman, Alexander Lukashenko, regularly runs sham elections and usually caps them off by jailing anyone who has the temerity, or nerve, to run against him. In fact, he jailed Sviatlana's husband--a popular online commentator--a few months ago. He disqualified or jailed other candidates and harassed and detained protesters and journalists, including those from Radio Free Europe. I am not surprised by what I read in the Tribune. You see, 10 years ago, I went to Belarus, just after the equally appalling December 2010 Presidential election in which the same dictator, Lukashenko, jailed the opposition candidates. When I arrived there just after the election, I had a meeting I will never forget. It was with the family members of many of these jailed candidates. They were deeply concerned for the safety of their loved ones who had been rounded up by Lukashenko's KGB--and, yes, he still calls his secret police the KGB. They spoke movingly--these members of the family--about their admiration for their loved ones who had risked so much just to run in an election and lose against Lukashenko. They spoke of the fear of what would happen at the hands of Lukashenko's henchmen. I later told their stories on the floor of the Senate. Shortly thereafter, the Senate passed a resolution that I introduced with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and others that said that the announced result of this election in Belarus was neither credible nor sustainable since they jailed the political candidates who opposed Lukashenko. Eventually, all of them were released, but it took time. Here we go again--witnessing the same brutality and deprivation for the most basic demographic freedoms on the European continent. Clearly, Lukashenko knows he cannot win a fair election, so he turns to the usual autocrats' playbook--harassing and jailing opposition, rigging and discrediting the electoral process, and unleashing brutality on anyone who resisted. I am here to say to Mr. Lukashenko, no one in the West is fooled. That is why I am pleased to have introduced a resolution with Senators Rubio, Cardin, and others that calls for the release of those disgracefully jailed during the Belarus election period. It calls for basic international election norms to be adhered to, including the allowing of international and local election observers and for the peaceful exercise of basic democratic rights. I want to thank my colleagues who joined me on this measure. I believe this matter has been passed by live consent. I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to let them know about this violation of democratic values in Belarus. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5233 | null | 1,147 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I would like to make a few brief remarks today about TikTok, an app that has dominated the news in recent weeks and has dominated the internet in recent years. As most of you know, TikTok is used to create short music videos, and it has grown to be one of the most popular apps in America. More than 80 million Americans now have TikTok on their personal phones. It might be easy just to assume that this app is harmless--music videos, diverting fun--but, let me assure you, the security concerns surrounding TikTok are real and not lighthearted in the least. TikTok is currently a major security risk, both to our data security and to our national security. ByteDance, which is TikTok's parent corporation, is based in Beijing, and we all know that Chinese corporations and the Chinese Communist Party are, in many ways, the same thing. In fact, China's national intelligence law requires it to be so. ByteDance, as a Chinese company, is obligated to collaborate with Chinese intelligence services, including by sharing data. In fact, all of the data that TikTok and ByteDance collect--and they collect a lot of data--can be routed at a moment's notice to the Chinese Communist Party. TikTok is a uniquely intrusive application. The company openly admits that it tracks users' locations, it tracks users' keystroke patterns, it tracks the filenames on users' devices. TikTok essentially claims the right to peer straight through our phones into our lives. I could go on. TikTok has censored content critical of China's treatment of Uighur Muslims and has violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Now, in light of all this, in light of all we know, it is unthinkable to me that we should continue to permit Federal employees--those workers entrusted with sensitive government data--to access this app on their work phones and computers. Not only is it inappropriate; it is irresponsible. This app represents a clear and present security risk at a time when we need to be clear-eyed about the threat from the Chinese Communist Party. That is why I introduced legislation to remove TikTok from government-owned phones and devices. Now, this is just common sense, and it follows steps that the Pentagon has started to take on its own, but we badly need a uniform standard that can apply across all Federal agencies and government organizations. Now, over the last few days we have heard a lot about a potential acquisition or sale of TikTok in the United States, but no one can say yet what will come of those talks. Deals fall through all the time, and TikTok is a threat to the security of Federal devices right now. Every day we wait is a day ByteDance can collect more information on and about Americans. Today is the day to take action. Even if TikTok ends up being sold eventually, it will be the responsibility of this body, the responsibility of all of us, to make sure that no trace of Beijing's influence remains--none at all. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support, and I particularly want to thank Senator Rick Scott, who has been my partner on this effort from the very beginning. It is always a privilege to work with and collaborate with Senator Scott, as we have on so many areas, and he has been, as I said, at the forefront of this effort from the very beginning. He is here today, and I would like to yield to him now to make a few remarks. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HAWLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5236 | null | 1,148 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mrs. LOEFFLER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask the Senate to pass a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--known as FLETC--that is headquartered in my home State of Georgia. This is the center that trains Federal law enforcement officers whom President Trump has directed to help restore law and order in communities across our country faced with dramatic increases in violence. As part of Operation Legend, the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, and Homeland Security have been deployed to Kansas City, Chicago, Albuquerque, and Detroit to reduce alarming and rising levels of violent crime across America. Sadly, our brave women and men of law enforcement are under attack. Rioters have physically assaulted law enforcement--throwing rocks at them and more, causing countless injuries. It is clear that the recent surge in violence has been driven in part by a lack of leadership from leftwing politicians who refuse to prosecute crime and who endorse defunding the police. They are clearly intent on politicizing and demonizing our law enforcement. Today, I am asking the Senate to recognize the critical centers that train these dedicated officers. For half a century, FLETC has trained the next generation of highly qualified law enforcement. Headquartered at the former Glynco Naval Air Station in Georgia, FLETC has been instrumental in getting violent criminals off the streets and protecting our communities for five decades. Every year, FLETC trains nearly 70,000 officers from 95 Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies. This includes agents from FBI, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection agencies, and others. It includes the Secret Service, Park Police, and U.S. Capitol police officers who keep all of us here safe every day. In Georgia, FLETC is a cornerstone of our coastal community where agents train in a mock town complete with banks, shops, and hotels to mimic real-world scenarios. There are other programs in cyber terrorism, active shooter threats, and financial forensics. FLETC Director Thomas Walters recently said: ``FLETC is the only institution in the U.S. that has the capability and capacity to train the new Federal officers that will replace thousands of officers that retire from Federal law enforcement in a typical year.'' At a time when law enforcement is under more scrutiny, more pressure than ever, it is important that we take this opportunity to recognize the hard work that goes into training and preparing our Federal law enforcement officers, particularly in my home State of Georgia. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 668, submitted earlier today. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. LOEFFLER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5239 | null | 1,149 |
formal | law and order | null | racist | Mrs. LOEFFLER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask the Senate to pass a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--known as FLETC--that is headquartered in my home State of Georgia. This is the center that trains Federal law enforcement officers whom President Trump has directed to help restore law and order in communities across our country faced with dramatic increases in violence. As part of Operation Legend, the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, and Homeland Security have been deployed to Kansas City, Chicago, Albuquerque, and Detroit to reduce alarming and rising levels of violent crime across America. Sadly, our brave women and men of law enforcement are under attack. Rioters have physically assaulted law enforcement--throwing rocks at them and more, causing countless injuries. It is clear that the recent surge in violence has been driven in part by a lack of leadership from leftwing politicians who refuse to prosecute crime and who endorse defunding the police. They are clearly intent on politicizing and demonizing our law enforcement. Today, I am asking the Senate to recognize the critical centers that train these dedicated officers. For half a century, FLETC has trained the next generation of highly qualified law enforcement. Headquartered at the former Glynco Naval Air Station in Georgia, FLETC has been instrumental in getting violent criminals off the streets and protecting our communities for five decades. Every year, FLETC trains nearly 70,000 officers from 95 Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies. This includes agents from FBI, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection agencies, and others. It includes the Secret Service, Park Police, and U.S. Capitol police officers who keep all of us here safe every day. In Georgia, FLETC is a cornerstone of our coastal community where agents train in a mock town complete with banks, shops, and hotels to mimic real-world scenarios. There are other programs in cyber terrorism, active shooter threats, and financial forensics. FLETC Director Thomas Walters recently said: ``FLETC is the only institution in the U.S. that has the capability and capacity to train the new Federal officers that will replace thousands of officers that retire from Federal law enforcement in a typical year.'' At a time when law enforcement is under more scrutiny, more pressure than ever, it is important that we take this opportunity to recognize the hard work that goes into training and preparing our Federal law enforcement officers, particularly in my home State of Georgia. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 668, submitted earlier today. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. LOEFFLER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5239 | null | 1,150 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mrs. LOEFFLER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask the Senate to pass a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--known as FLETC--that is headquartered in my home State of Georgia. This is the center that trains Federal law enforcement officers whom President Trump has directed to help restore law and order in communities across our country faced with dramatic increases in violence. As part of Operation Legend, the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, and Homeland Security have been deployed to Kansas City, Chicago, Albuquerque, and Detroit to reduce alarming and rising levels of violent crime across America. Sadly, our brave women and men of law enforcement are under attack. Rioters have physically assaulted law enforcement--throwing rocks at them and more, causing countless injuries. It is clear that the recent surge in violence has been driven in part by a lack of leadership from leftwing politicians who refuse to prosecute crime and who endorse defunding the police. They are clearly intent on politicizing and demonizing our law enforcement. Today, I am asking the Senate to recognize the critical centers that train these dedicated officers. For half a century, FLETC has trained the next generation of highly qualified law enforcement. Headquartered at the former Glynco Naval Air Station in Georgia, FLETC has been instrumental in getting violent criminals off the streets and protecting our communities for five decades. Every year, FLETC trains nearly 70,000 officers from 95 Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies. This includes agents from FBI, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection agencies, and others. It includes the Secret Service, Park Police, and U.S. Capitol police officers who keep all of us here safe every day. In Georgia, FLETC is a cornerstone of our coastal community where agents train in a mock town complete with banks, shops, and hotels to mimic real-world scenarios. There are other programs in cyber terrorism, active shooter threats, and financial forensics. FLETC Director Thomas Walters recently said: ``FLETC is the only institution in the U.S. that has the capability and capacity to train the new Federal officers that will replace thousands of officers that retire from Federal law enforcement in a typical year.'' At a time when law enforcement is under more scrutiny, more pressure than ever, it is important that we take this opportunity to recognize the hard work that goes into training and preparing our Federal law enforcement officers, particularly in my home State of Georgia. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 668, submitted earlier today. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. LOEFFLER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5239 | null | 1,151 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Mrs. LOEFFLER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask the Senate to pass a resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--known as FLETC--that is headquartered in my home State of Georgia. This is the center that trains Federal law enforcement officers whom President Trump has directed to help restore law and order in communities across our country faced with dramatic increases in violence. As part of Operation Legend, the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, and Homeland Security have been deployed to Kansas City, Chicago, Albuquerque, and Detroit to reduce alarming and rising levels of violent crime across America. Sadly, our brave women and men of law enforcement are under attack. Rioters have physically assaulted law enforcement--throwing rocks at them and more, causing countless injuries. It is clear that the recent surge in violence has been driven in part by a lack of leadership from leftwing politicians who refuse to prosecute crime and who endorse defunding the police. They are clearly intent on politicizing and demonizing our law enforcement. Today, I am asking the Senate to recognize the critical centers that train these dedicated officers. For half a century, FLETC has trained the next generation of highly qualified law enforcement. Headquartered at the former Glynco Naval Air Station in Georgia, FLETC has been instrumental in getting violent criminals off the streets and protecting our communities for five decades. Every year, FLETC trains nearly 70,000 officers from 95 Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies. This includes agents from FBI, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection agencies, and others. It includes the Secret Service, Park Police, and U.S. Capitol police officers who keep all of us here safe every day. In Georgia, FLETC is a cornerstone of our coastal community where agents train in a mock town complete with banks, shops, and hotels to mimic real-world scenarios. There are other programs in cyber terrorism, active shooter threats, and financial forensics. FLETC Director Thomas Walters recently said: ``FLETC is the only institution in the U.S. that has the capability and capacity to train the new Federal officers that will replace thousands of officers that retire from Federal law enforcement in a typical year.'' At a time when law enforcement is under more scrutiny, more pressure than ever, it is important that we take this opportunity to recognize the hard work that goes into training and preparing our Federal law enforcement officers, particularly in my home State of Georgia. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 668, submitted earlier today. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. LOEFFLER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5239 | null | 1,152 |
formal | banker | null | antisemitic | Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the people doing the truly essential work in our country, and it isn't the Fortune 500 CEO, hedge fund manager, or investment banker. It is the home healthcare worker providing essential care to homebound seniors or the disabled. It is the delivery truckdriver working a 12-hour shift, bringing food and medicine and other critical supplies to people who need it. It is a grocery store clerk, working a checkout line or stocking shelves to keep up with the skyrocketing demand. It is the migrant agricultural worker picking berries or standing on an assembly line at a meatpacking plant. It is the housekeeper or custodian working longer hours to clean our hotels, offices, and other public places. It is the childcare worker coming in every day to care for other children, while being unable to afford care for their own. And it is the busdriver who, despite operating on a tightly enclosed space, transports hundreds of people to work every day. These people, and others like them doing essential work, are literally risking their lives every day for the rest of us, and they are earning much deserved recognition during this pandemic. But let me be clear. These workers have always been essential, even if our economic system has not valued the jobs they do or treated them with the respect they deserve. Valuing and respecting essential workers is about more than calling them heroes when that is the popular thing to do. It is about recognizing and calling out how these workers have been treated in our economy. And it is about doing something to fix it. For too long, people doing the work now deemed essential during the pandemic have been forced to work for low wages that are either at or just above minimum wage, have jobs that offer no paid family or medical leave, have little access to affordable childcare, have jobs that offer no employer-sponsored healthcare coverage, and have been forced to work in dangerous conditions. Coping with these inequities in normal times was challenging enough for our essential workers, but the pandemic, exacerbated by Donald Trump's failure in leadership, is creating new problems, and it is making existing problems worse. The administration's failure to implement emergency safety standards is creating unsafe workplaces for essential workers. Meanwhile, it is pushing to provide businesses immunity from coronavirus-related lawsuits. If they are successful, employers would have even less incentive to provide safe workplaces for employees or to protect customers and consumers. Its failure to fully and effectively use the Defense Production Act means the most vulnerable workers continue to face shortages of personal protective equipment--putting them at greater risk for contacting the coronavirus. And its failure to implement a national testing and contact tracing program means that essential workers face testing delays and may never be notified if a coworker has tested positive for COVID-19. As Donald Trump refuses to act responsibly to keep our essential workers safe, this has fallen to States, local governments, and the private sector. In Hawaii, we are fortunate to have responsive State and county governments, strong unions, and one of the lowest uninsured rates in the country, thanks to Hawaii's Prepaid Healthcare Act. These advantages, however, have not shielded Hawaii's essential workers from the dangers of the pandemic. Let me share a few of their stories. A few weeks ago, I spoke to a group of transit workers who operate The Bus in Honolulu. A simple shower curtain separates the drivers from passengers boarding their buses. Many riders do not wear masks, putting the driver and other passengers at risk for contracting the virus. Drivers are also facing threats and physical violence when they ask riders to put on a mask. One passenger even spat upon a busdriver who asked the person to observe social distancing. Many of the busdrivers live in multigenerational families. They spoke about the fear that they will contract the virus on the job and bring it home. Three bus operators have already tested positive, including one just this week. Transit workers in other industries have also experienced challenges related to coronavirus safety. A group of Hawaii flight attendants I recently spoke with are unable to be tested regularly due to supply shortages, despite showing up to work every day. They also spoke about their daily challenges convincing passengers to wear masks. Essential workers are also providing childcare during this pandemic so that other essential workers can continue to do their job. Katie, a nanny on Oahu, whom I heard from recently, has provided childcare for essential workers and military families on Oahu during the pandemic. Katie lives with her mom, who has been battling stage IV cancer for nearly 3 years. She is rightly concerned about the possibility she might bring this virus home with her from work. In April, Katie received a scare when one of the families she worked with told her they might have been exposed. Katie is like so many essential workers in Hawaii and across the country who live with uncertainty about their jobs and families every day. More firefighters, grocery store workers, bank tellers, postal workers, community health center employees, and paramedics tested positive for COVID-19 this week. They certainly will not be the last. Something as simple as showing up to work every day shouldn't be an act of bravery, but that is exactly what we are expecting from our essential workers every day. If they can show up and do their job, Congress can certainly step up and do its job. It is why Senate Democrats have been fighting so hard to pass the Heroes Act--to bring this to the floor, to debate the Heroes Act. The Heroes Act includes a number of strong provisions that will support essential workers during this pandemic. It establishes a $200 billion fund to provide up to $10,000 of hazard pay to each essential worker. It requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency temporary standard within 7 days of enactment. It prevents employers from retaliating against workers who report workplace safety issues. It adds another $75 billion for COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, and isolation measures. It also provides every American access to free treatment for COVID-19. It provides access to free and affordable childcare options for essential workers who are expected to show up to their jobs regardless of whether they have someone to look after their children, and it provides permanent paid sick and family leave so that people don't have to choose between their jobs and the health of their families The Heroes Act is a bold, worker- and family-centric bill. We should have passed it months ago. Instead, the bill has been sitting on the majority leader's desk for almost 3 months now. He called it ``taking a pause.'' The people suffering in our country didn't have the luxury of taking a pause 3 months ago, and they certainly don't have the luxury to take a pause now. As Senators, we are able to telework. We can attend hearings remotely. We can stay socially distant. Maybe this is one reason some Republican Senators don't have sufficient empathy or the sense of urgency to pass the next COVID relief bill that would actually help the busdriver whocan't drive a bus from home, the UPS driver who can't deliver packages from home, the healthcare aide who can't administer medications to seniors from home, the agriculture worker who can't pick coffee beans from home, and the postal worker who can't deliver the mail from home. Millions of people are suffering in our country today. They should be able to count on the Senate to step up and take action to help them. At this very moment, negotiators are deciding whom we will help and who will be left behind. Democrats are fighting to protect essential workers and help the unemployed. Republicans are fighting to protect businesses from their own negligence and allow corporate executives--corporate executives--to write off their business lunches. These very different priorities reflect very different values and point out what is at stake in these negotiations. Protecting and assisting essential workers is a value. It isn't enough to simply tell them ``thank you very much'' and call them heroes. Actions speak louder than words. It is time for us to act. It is long past time for us to act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HIRONO | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5242 | null | 1,153 |
formal | Islamists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, thousands of radical Islamists rallied on Friday in Northwestern Pakistan in support of a man who earlier this week walked into a courtroom in the city of Peshawar and gunned down a U.S. citizen on trial for blasphemy. That is how the New York Times started its article on this issue last week. The American, Tahir Naseem, died of his wounds before he could be taken to the hospital while the gunman was taken into custody. The U.S. State Department said Naseem was standing trial after being lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois. He was entrapped by the country's controversial blasphemy law, which international rights groups have sought to have repealed. The blasphemy law calls for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam, but, in Pakistan, the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and vigilantes to kill those who have been accused. Pakistani officials said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself to be Islam's prophet. That was the accusation that was laid against him. At the rally in Peshawar, which was in support of the person who murdered the American citizen, the demonstrators carried signs that praised the murderer for the killing and called for his immediate release from jail. They said he killed Naseem because the government was too slow in prosecuting blasphemy cases. Last December--8 months ago--I filed a resolution to speak with a unified voice on what I considered to be a nonpartisan issue--a simple statement from this Congress condemning blasphemy laws across the world wherever they exist. We are a nation that stands for the ability of every individual to choose any faith, to change one's faith, or for one to have no faith at all. That is a basic human right. Yet, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 84 countries--more than one-third of the world's countries--have a blasphemy law on the books, including in Pakistan, where an American citizen was murdered last week under an accusation of blasphemy. This resolution that I filed 8 months ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee has already moved in the House. The House Foreign Affairs Committee worked through the process of this resolution in March of this year and passed it unanimously. It was sponsored by Democrat Jamie Raskin and had the support of multiple Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was overwhelmingly moved while this resolution--a mere eight pages--has sat, unmoved, for 8 months. The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who was appointed by Speaker Pelosi, has said that USCIRF--that is this organization--has noted countless times that Pakistan's blasphemy law inflames interreligious tensions and too often leads to violence. He urges the State Department to enter into a binding agreement with the Pakistani Government that includes the repeal of blasphemy provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. I could not agree more. The Trump administration has spoken out on this, and the House of Representatives has spoken out on this. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a nonpartisan group, has spoken out on this. We in the Senate should also speak out on it, and the time to speak out on it is when we have just had an American citizen murdered overseas because of these laws. It is prime time to move this. This is something that, I believe, should be passed by unanimous consent. How could we oppose the movement of something like this? Now, I have heard that, possibly, we should slow this whole thing down because resolutions like this should have a fulsome committee process. They should be heard and marked up and read and reread, and 8 months is not enough time to review them. The problem with that is that, last week, a Democratic resolution on elections in Belarus was filed. It was never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations here in the Senate. Yet it was discharged, placed on the hotline yesterday morning, and cleared last night. So, for Democratic bills, they don't have to go through the committee process, apparently. They can just move through on their own because the Republicans have not opposed those. The Republicans take the time to read these on their own--to go through the resolutions and make decisions on them. That resolution had a majority of Democratic sponsors, but it also had Republican sponsors. This resolution is sponsored by Chris Coons and me. We also consider it to be a nonpartisan issue. Something that has sat in the committee for 8 months, waiting, surely can move when something that was filed last week and never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations could move on the hotline in a single day. So I bring this resolution because I think we should speak out on this as the House has already spoken out on it, as the State Department has already spoken out on it, as the Trump administration has already spoken out on it, and as USCIRF has already spoken out on it. Why wouldn't 100 Senators speak out on this blasphemy resolution today Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 458. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5243 | null | 1,154 |
formal | radical Islamist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, thousands of radical Islamists rallied on Friday in Northwestern Pakistan in support of a man who earlier this week walked into a courtroom in the city of Peshawar and gunned down a U.S. citizen on trial for blasphemy. That is how the New York Times started its article on this issue last week. The American, Tahir Naseem, died of his wounds before he could be taken to the hospital while the gunman was taken into custody. The U.S. State Department said Naseem was standing trial after being lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois. He was entrapped by the country's controversial blasphemy law, which international rights groups have sought to have repealed. The blasphemy law calls for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam, but, in Pakistan, the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and vigilantes to kill those who have been accused. Pakistani officials said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself to be Islam's prophet. That was the accusation that was laid against him. At the rally in Peshawar, which was in support of the person who murdered the American citizen, the demonstrators carried signs that praised the murderer for the killing and called for his immediate release from jail. They said he killed Naseem because the government was too slow in prosecuting blasphemy cases. Last December--8 months ago--I filed a resolution to speak with a unified voice on what I considered to be a nonpartisan issue--a simple statement from this Congress condemning blasphemy laws across the world wherever they exist. We are a nation that stands for the ability of every individual to choose any faith, to change one's faith, or for one to have no faith at all. That is a basic human right. Yet, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 84 countries--more than one-third of the world's countries--have a blasphemy law on the books, including in Pakistan, where an American citizen was murdered last week under an accusation of blasphemy. This resolution that I filed 8 months ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee has already moved in the House. The House Foreign Affairs Committee worked through the process of this resolution in March of this year and passed it unanimously. It was sponsored by Democrat Jamie Raskin and had the support of multiple Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was overwhelmingly moved while this resolution--a mere eight pages--has sat, unmoved, for 8 months. The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who was appointed by Speaker Pelosi, has said that USCIRF--that is this organization--has noted countless times that Pakistan's blasphemy law inflames interreligious tensions and too often leads to violence. He urges the State Department to enter into a binding agreement with the Pakistani Government that includes the repeal of blasphemy provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. I could not agree more. The Trump administration has spoken out on this, and the House of Representatives has spoken out on this. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a nonpartisan group, has spoken out on this. We in the Senate should also speak out on it, and the time to speak out on it is when we have just had an American citizen murdered overseas because of these laws. It is prime time to move this. This is something that, I believe, should be passed by unanimous consent. How could we oppose the movement of something like this? Now, I have heard that, possibly, we should slow this whole thing down because resolutions like this should have a fulsome committee process. They should be heard and marked up and read and reread, and 8 months is not enough time to review them. The problem with that is that, last week, a Democratic resolution on elections in Belarus was filed. It was never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations here in the Senate. Yet it was discharged, placed on the hotline yesterday morning, and cleared last night. So, for Democratic bills, they don't have to go through the committee process, apparently. They can just move through on their own because the Republicans have not opposed those. The Republicans take the time to read these on their own--to go through the resolutions and make decisions on them. That resolution had a majority of Democratic sponsors, but it also had Republican sponsors. This resolution is sponsored by Chris Coons and me. We also consider it to be a nonpartisan issue. Something that has sat in the committee for 8 months, waiting, surely can move when something that was filed last week and never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations could move on the hotline in a single day. So I bring this resolution because I think we should speak out on this as the House has already spoken out on it, as the State Department has already spoken out on it, as the Trump administration has already spoken out on it, and as USCIRF has already spoken out on it. Why wouldn't 100 Senators speak out on this blasphemy resolution today Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 458. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5243 | null | 1,155 |
formal | radical Islamists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, thousands of radical Islamists rallied on Friday in Northwestern Pakistan in support of a man who earlier this week walked into a courtroom in the city of Peshawar and gunned down a U.S. citizen on trial for blasphemy. That is how the New York Times started its article on this issue last week. The American, Tahir Naseem, died of his wounds before he could be taken to the hospital while the gunman was taken into custody. The U.S. State Department said Naseem was standing trial after being lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois. He was entrapped by the country's controversial blasphemy law, which international rights groups have sought to have repealed. The blasphemy law calls for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam, but, in Pakistan, the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and vigilantes to kill those who have been accused. Pakistani officials said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself to be Islam's prophet. That was the accusation that was laid against him. At the rally in Peshawar, which was in support of the person who murdered the American citizen, the demonstrators carried signs that praised the murderer for the killing and called for his immediate release from jail. They said he killed Naseem because the government was too slow in prosecuting blasphemy cases. Last December--8 months ago--I filed a resolution to speak with a unified voice on what I considered to be a nonpartisan issue--a simple statement from this Congress condemning blasphemy laws across the world wherever they exist. We are a nation that stands for the ability of every individual to choose any faith, to change one's faith, or for one to have no faith at all. That is a basic human right. Yet, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 84 countries--more than one-third of the world's countries--have a blasphemy law on the books, including in Pakistan, where an American citizen was murdered last week under an accusation of blasphemy. This resolution that I filed 8 months ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee has already moved in the House. The House Foreign Affairs Committee worked through the process of this resolution in March of this year and passed it unanimously. It was sponsored by Democrat Jamie Raskin and had the support of multiple Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was overwhelmingly moved while this resolution--a mere eight pages--has sat, unmoved, for 8 months. The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who was appointed by Speaker Pelosi, has said that USCIRF--that is this organization--has noted countless times that Pakistan's blasphemy law inflames interreligious tensions and too often leads to violence. He urges the State Department to enter into a binding agreement with the Pakistani Government that includes the repeal of blasphemy provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. I could not agree more. The Trump administration has spoken out on this, and the House of Representatives has spoken out on this. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a nonpartisan group, has spoken out on this. We in the Senate should also speak out on it, and the time to speak out on it is when we have just had an American citizen murdered overseas because of these laws. It is prime time to move this. This is something that, I believe, should be passed by unanimous consent. How could we oppose the movement of something like this? Now, I have heard that, possibly, we should slow this whole thing down because resolutions like this should have a fulsome committee process. They should be heard and marked up and read and reread, and 8 months is not enough time to review them. The problem with that is that, last week, a Democratic resolution on elections in Belarus was filed. It was never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations here in the Senate. Yet it was discharged, placed on the hotline yesterday morning, and cleared last night. So, for Democratic bills, they don't have to go through the committee process, apparently. They can just move through on their own because the Republicans have not opposed those. The Republicans take the time to read these on their own--to go through the resolutions and make decisions on them. That resolution had a majority of Democratic sponsors, but it also had Republican sponsors. This resolution is sponsored by Chris Coons and me. We also consider it to be a nonpartisan issue. Something that has sat in the committee for 8 months, waiting, surely can move when something that was filed last week and never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations could move on the hotline in a single day. So I bring this resolution because I think we should speak out on this as the House has already spoken out on it, as the State Department has already spoken out on it, as the Trump administration has already spoken out on it, and as USCIRF has already spoken out on it. Why wouldn't 100 Senators speak out on this blasphemy resolution today Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 458. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5243 | null | 1,156 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, thousands of radical Islamists rallied on Friday in Northwestern Pakistan in support of a man who earlier this week walked into a courtroom in the city of Peshawar and gunned down a U.S. citizen on trial for blasphemy. That is how the New York Times started its article on this issue last week. The American, Tahir Naseem, died of his wounds before he could be taken to the hospital while the gunman was taken into custody. The U.S. State Department said Naseem was standing trial after being lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois. He was entrapped by the country's controversial blasphemy law, which international rights groups have sought to have repealed. The blasphemy law calls for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam, but, in Pakistan, the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and vigilantes to kill those who have been accused. Pakistani officials said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself to be Islam's prophet. That was the accusation that was laid against him. At the rally in Peshawar, which was in support of the person who murdered the American citizen, the demonstrators carried signs that praised the murderer for the killing and called for his immediate release from jail. They said he killed Naseem because the government was too slow in prosecuting blasphemy cases. Last December--8 months ago--I filed a resolution to speak with a unified voice on what I considered to be a nonpartisan issue--a simple statement from this Congress condemning blasphemy laws across the world wherever they exist. We are a nation that stands for the ability of every individual to choose any faith, to change one's faith, or for one to have no faith at all. That is a basic human right. Yet, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 84 countries--more than one-third of the world's countries--have a blasphemy law on the books, including in Pakistan, where an American citizen was murdered last week under an accusation of blasphemy. This resolution that I filed 8 months ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee has already moved in the House. The House Foreign Affairs Committee worked through the process of this resolution in March of this year and passed it unanimously. It was sponsored by Democrat Jamie Raskin and had the support of multiple Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was overwhelmingly moved while this resolution--a mere eight pages--has sat, unmoved, for 8 months. The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who was appointed by Speaker Pelosi, has said that USCIRF--that is this organization--has noted countless times that Pakistan's blasphemy law inflames interreligious tensions and too often leads to violence. He urges the State Department to enter into a binding agreement with the Pakistani Government that includes the repeal of blasphemy provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. I could not agree more. The Trump administration has spoken out on this, and the House of Representatives has spoken out on this. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a nonpartisan group, has spoken out on this. We in the Senate should also speak out on it, and the time to speak out on it is when we have just had an American citizen murdered overseas because of these laws. It is prime time to move this. This is something that, I believe, should be passed by unanimous consent. How could we oppose the movement of something like this? Now, I have heard that, possibly, we should slow this whole thing down because resolutions like this should have a fulsome committee process. They should be heard and marked up and read and reread, and 8 months is not enough time to review them. The problem with that is that, last week, a Democratic resolution on elections in Belarus was filed. It was never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations here in the Senate. Yet it was discharged, placed on the hotline yesterday morning, and cleared last night. So, for Democratic bills, they don't have to go through the committee process, apparently. They can just move through on their own because the Republicans have not opposed those. The Republicans take the time to read these on their own--to go through the resolutions and make decisions on them. That resolution had a majority of Democratic sponsors, but it also had Republican sponsors. This resolution is sponsored by Chris Coons and me. We also consider it to be a nonpartisan issue. Something that has sat in the committee for 8 months, waiting, surely can move when something that was filed last week and never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations could move on the hotline in a single day. So I bring this resolution because I think we should speak out on this as the House has already spoken out on it, as the State Department has already spoken out on it, as the Trump administration has already spoken out on it, and as USCIRF has already spoken out on it. Why wouldn't 100 Senators speak out on this blasphemy resolution today Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 458. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5243 | null | 1,157 |
formal | radical Islam | null | Islamophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, thousands of radical Islamists rallied on Friday in Northwestern Pakistan in support of a man who earlier this week walked into a courtroom in the city of Peshawar and gunned down a U.S. citizen on trial for blasphemy. That is how the New York Times started its article on this issue last week. The American, Tahir Naseem, died of his wounds before he could be taken to the hospital while the gunman was taken into custody. The U.S. State Department said Naseem was standing trial after being lured to Pakistan from his home in Illinois. He was entrapped by the country's controversial blasphemy law, which international rights groups have sought to have repealed. The blasphemy law calls for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam, but, in Pakistan, the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and vigilantes to kill those who have been accused. Pakistani officials said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself to be Islam's prophet. That was the accusation that was laid against him. At the rally in Peshawar, which was in support of the person who murdered the American citizen, the demonstrators carried signs that praised the murderer for the killing and called for his immediate release from jail. They said he killed Naseem because the government was too slow in prosecuting blasphemy cases. Last December--8 months ago--I filed a resolution to speak with a unified voice on what I considered to be a nonpartisan issue--a simple statement from this Congress condemning blasphemy laws across the world wherever they exist. We are a nation that stands for the ability of every individual to choose any faith, to change one's faith, or for one to have no faith at all. That is a basic human right. Yet, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 84 countries--more than one-third of the world's countries--have a blasphemy law on the books, including in Pakistan, where an American citizen was murdered last week under an accusation of blasphemy. This resolution that I filed 8 months ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee has already moved in the House. The House Foreign Affairs Committee worked through the process of this resolution in March of this year and passed it unanimously. It was sponsored by Democrat Jamie Raskin and had the support of multiple Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was overwhelmingly moved while this resolution--a mere eight pages--has sat, unmoved, for 8 months. The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who was appointed by Speaker Pelosi, has said that USCIRF--that is this organization--has noted countless times that Pakistan's blasphemy law inflames interreligious tensions and too often leads to violence. He urges the State Department to enter into a binding agreement with the Pakistani Government that includes the repeal of blasphemy provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. I could not agree more. The Trump administration has spoken out on this, and the House of Representatives has spoken out on this. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a nonpartisan group, has spoken out on this. We in the Senate should also speak out on it, and the time to speak out on it is when we have just had an American citizen murdered overseas because of these laws. It is prime time to move this. This is something that, I believe, should be passed by unanimous consent. How could we oppose the movement of something like this? Now, I have heard that, possibly, we should slow this whole thing down because resolutions like this should have a fulsome committee process. They should be heard and marked up and read and reread, and 8 months is not enough time to review them. The problem with that is that, last week, a Democratic resolution on elections in Belarus was filed. It was never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations here in the Senate. Yet it was discharged, placed on the hotline yesterday morning, and cleared last night. So, for Democratic bills, they don't have to go through the committee process, apparently. They can just move through on their own because the Republicans have not opposed those. The Republicans take the time to read these on their own--to go through the resolutions and make decisions on them. That resolution had a majority of Democratic sponsors, but it also had Republican sponsors. This resolution is sponsored by Chris Coons and me. We also consider it to be a nonpartisan issue. Something that has sat in the committee for 8 months, waiting, surely can move when something that was filed last week and never heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations could move on the hotline in a single day. So I bring this resolution because I think we should speak out on this as the House has already spoken out on it, as the State Department has already spoken out on it, as the Trump administration has already spoken out on it, and as USCIRF has already spoken out on it. Why wouldn't 100 Senators speak out on this blasphemy resolution today Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 458. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5243 | null | 1,158 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I think we are all a little frustrated right now because the negotiations on the next COVID-19 package seem to be at a standstill. If you talk to the negotiators and you even read the press accounts, which are pretty open, what they say is that they are deadlocked. One of the main reasons they are deadlocked is over this issue of unemployment insurance. Now, recall, back in the CARES Act, there was an extension of a Federal supplement to unemployment insurance. So we put in place a $600 Federal benefit on top of the State benefits. At the time, there were concerns about whether that would lead to people on unemployment insurance getting more money than they would at work, and there was actually an amendment here on the Senate floor regarding that. Although it did not pass, I think pretty much every Republican supported it with that concern. In fact, that is what has happened. If you look at what has happened over the past couple of months, as the $600 has been put in place, it clearly has often led to people making more on unemployment insurance than they can make at work. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan group here in the U.S. Congress that analyzes some of these economic issues, has said that if someone is on unemployment insurance today, they are likely to be making substantially more than someone who is not on unemployment insurance. In other words, people are making more not to work than to work. CBO says: ``Roughly five of every six recipients would receive benefits that exceeded the weekly amounts they could expect to earn from work during those months'' if you were to extend this until the end of the year. In other words, they are saying that 80 percent of UI recipients would make more on unemployment insurance than they would have at their old jobs--meaning that if you followed where the Democratic negotiators are in keeping $600 in place until the end of the year, there would be an unprecedented disincentive to go to work in this country. I think that is widely acknowledged. The University of Chicago has a study that isn't quite 80 percent; it says 68 percent, though. I don't think anybody disputes the fact that most people on unemployment insurance are making more than they would if they were at work. When I talk to my Democratic colleagues about that, they are hearing the same thing I am hearing from small business owners--by the way, from nonprofits, from employers of all sizes and all stripes--saying that it is tough to get people to come back to work when they can make more on unemployment insurance by not working. I think a lot of my Democratic colleagues agree. It is good to get people back to work--get back to work safely, yes, and we ought to be sure that the employers are following the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and others. But it is good to get people back to work because then they are reconnected with their healthcare, if they have it, with their retirement savings, and with training. That connection to work is a positive thing, providing people with dignity and self-respect. It comes with work, so we should all be for that. Yet when you see what is happening in this negotiation, this is being stalled because Democrats are being intransigent. They are saying stubbornly: We are going to stick to $600. Today, there was a press conference with Speaker Pelosi and Democratic Leader Schumer, and that is exactly what they said. Here is the quote: ``We have said that we are going to have $600.'' This is necessary. I know that that is not where the rank and file are here in this Chamber because I have talked to a number of my Democratic colleagues about this. They realize that the $600--even those who thought it might have been necessary at the time, and I voted for the package at a time when we had unemployment that was such a shock and so high, and people were in such need of immediate cash. But also I have heard, again, from so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that the $600 is something they are hearing about more and more back home from the employers who say: We can't get people back to work. So the $600 is something that there needs to be some flexibility on to come up with a smarter way to ensure that people can continue to get a Federal supplement because we do continue to have relatively high unemployment in this country. In my own State of Ohio, there is almost 11 percent unemployment. But let's not have it be so much that people are incentivized not to work. That doesn't help anybody. There are ``Help Wanted'' signs all over my State. I was at a Ford plant recently, where they have 25 percent absenteeism, which they attribute to this issue. I have been at a lot of small businesses, which is where probably most of my colleagues are hearing a lot of concerns about the fact that they can't get people who used to work for them to come back, and they certainly can't hire the new people they need, even though they are reopening safely and doing everything they are supposed to do in terms of the guidelines. They are having a tough time getting back to work. There is an auto plant in Ohio where the white-collar workers are now working on the assembly line because they can't get enough workers who would normally have those jobs to work on the assembly line. So this is a problem right now, and I think everybody acknowledges it except the Democratic negotiators in this negotiation. Now, I don't think we are actually as far apart as the media accounts would suggest because there are lots of ideas out there. One idea, by the way, makes a lot of sense to me, and I am going to offer this in a moment as a resolution for the Senate to take up. I think this is the ultimate common sense--let's keep $600 in place for now while we negotiate something. Let's have an extension for another week on the unemployment insurance at 600 bucks just so we can negotiate something. What you don't want is people to fall off the cliff, and that is starting to happen now. The $600 expired last Friday. So 6 days ago it expired, and 6 days ago, 7 days ago, Martha McSally, a Senator from Arizona, came to this floor and offered this same unanimous consent request, saying: Let's just have 600 for another week. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, objected--instead, offering the $3.5 trillion package from the House. But he didn't respond to why we wouldn't at least give the negotiators a week to come up with something. So I am going to offer that same thing today because I do think it is notfair to have a cliff. I don't think there should be a cliff. I think people should be able to have some level--but not at $600 because that is now understood by everybody to mean that you are disincentivizing work. Americans are a generous people. Back in 2008 and 2009, when we had the great recession, we also did this. By the way, we did $25 a week then. So for Democrats who say this is unprecedented, well, we had 10 percent unemployment back then--very high unemployment--and we did $25. I think we should do a lot more than that now but not so much that people are making more by not working than by working. There are a lot of ideas out there. Again, my ideas--ideas of individual Members--may not be what this body chooses to use, and that is fine. We are not all going to get our way, but we should be able to come up with a compromise here. My idea is to have a return-to-work bonus, so that you are getting the 600 bucks, but you can take some of that money back with you when you go back to work. That would create an incentive to get people back to work and connect people to those businesses as we talked about and the importance of doing that. But there are other ideas as well. There is a plan that was put out recently by two Obama administration veterans, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Jason Furman. They joined with a former H.W. Bush economist Glenn Hubbard to put out a proposal from of the Aspen Institute, hardly a conservative group, that proposes that the unemployment system--not at $600 but to continue at a cap of $400 and have it be determined based unemployment level for the State. The way unemployment works in the States is the States have a benefit, and this Federal benefit is on top of it. Most States provide on average about 50 percent of benefits; $600 is over 100 percent. It is over 130 percent, in fact. So this solution--again, from two Obama administration economists--is that you have $400 as a cap, when unemployment in those States is above 15 percent and zero Federal supplement when the State is at 7 percent or less. It phases out entirely. That is one bipartisan solution that is out there. Instead of insisting on $600, I would hope at least there is a discussion of those kinds of proposals. Senator Romney has a proposal out there that takes the amount from $500 per week in August to $400 to an 80-percent wage replacement phasing out altogether by year-end. Senator McConnell put his proposal out for a $200 amount over a 2-month period as a transition and then goes to a percent of wages. His percent of wages is 70 percent of wages. Again, there is no State that is that high. The States are 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, in that range. So there are ideas out there, and yet the Democrats keep coming back again and again to this notion of: We want it all or nothing. I will state to my colleague from Oregon who is here on the floor, and I am glad he is--he did a very good job for Democrats negotiating this proposal. I told him about it at the time. I know he took pride on it, and he should have. But we also need now to figure out where we go, going forward. None of us should want people to be disincentivized from going to work. We should not have a situation like we have now where, again, you have the leaders on the Democratic side, Speaker Pelosi and Democratic Leader Schumer, saying, ``Today, we have said that we are going to have $600. This is necessary.'' We have to be able to show some flexibility here to be able to break this impasse, to be able to provide for people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and need some help, but not continue to have this policy in place that doesn't work for our economy, for small businesses, and for workers themselves. Let's get the politics out of this. Let's do something that makes sense to be able to move forward on this broader crisis, and I think if we can fix the unemployment insurance issue, we are likely to get there | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5245 | null | 1,159 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I think we are all a little frustrated right now because the negotiations on the next COVID-19 package seem to be at a standstill. If you talk to the negotiators and you even read the press accounts, which are pretty open, what they say is that they are deadlocked. One of the main reasons they are deadlocked is over this issue of unemployment insurance. Now, recall, back in the CARES Act, there was an extension of a Federal supplement to unemployment insurance. So we put in place a $600 Federal benefit on top of the State benefits. At the time, there were concerns about whether that would lead to people on unemployment insurance getting more money than they would at work, and there was actually an amendment here on the Senate floor regarding that. Although it did not pass, I think pretty much every Republican supported it with that concern. In fact, that is what has happened. If you look at what has happened over the past couple of months, as the $600 has been put in place, it clearly has often led to people making more on unemployment insurance than they can make at work. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan group here in the U.S. Congress that analyzes some of these economic issues, has said that if someone is on unemployment insurance today, they are likely to be making substantially more than someone who is not on unemployment insurance. In other words, people are making more not to work than to work. CBO says: ``Roughly five of every six recipients would receive benefits that exceeded the weekly amounts they could expect to earn from work during those months'' if you were to extend this until the end of the year. In other words, they are saying that 80 percent of UI recipients would make more on unemployment insurance than they would have at their old jobs--meaning that if you followed where the Democratic negotiators are in keeping $600 in place until the end of the year, there would be an unprecedented disincentive to go to work in this country. I think that is widely acknowledged. The University of Chicago has a study that isn't quite 80 percent; it says 68 percent, though. I don't think anybody disputes the fact that most people on unemployment insurance are making more than they would if they were at work. When I talk to my Democratic colleagues about that, they are hearing the same thing I am hearing from small business owners--by the way, from nonprofits, from employers of all sizes and all stripes--saying that it is tough to get people to come back to work when they can make more on unemployment insurance by not working. I think a lot of my Democratic colleagues agree. It is good to get people back to work--get back to work safely, yes, and we ought to be sure that the employers are following the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and others. But it is good to get people back to work because then they are reconnected with their healthcare, if they have it, with their retirement savings, and with training. That connection to work is a positive thing, providing people with dignity and self-respect. It comes with work, so we should all be for that. Yet when you see what is happening in this negotiation, this is being stalled because Democrats are being intransigent. They are saying stubbornly: We are going to stick to $600. Today, there was a press conference with Speaker Pelosi and Democratic Leader Schumer, and that is exactly what they said. Here is the quote: ``We have said that we are going to have $600.'' This is necessary. I know that that is not where the rank and file are here in this Chamber because I have talked to a number of my Democratic colleagues about this. They realize that the $600--even those who thought it might have been necessary at the time, and I voted for the package at a time when we had unemployment that was such a shock and so high, and people were in such need of immediate cash. But also I have heard, again, from so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that the $600 is something they are hearing about more and more back home from the employers who say: We can't get people back to work. So the $600 is something that there needs to be some flexibility on to come up with a smarter way to ensure that people can continue to get a Federal supplement because we do continue to have relatively high unemployment in this country. In my own State of Ohio, there is almost 11 percent unemployment. But let's not have it be so much that people are incentivized not to work. That doesn't help anybody. There are ``Help Wanted'' signs all over my State. I was at a Ford plant recently, where they have 25 percent absenteeism, which they attribute to this issue. I have been at a lot of small businesses, which is where probably most of my colleagues are hearing a lot of concerns about the fact that they can't get people who used to work for them to come back, and they certainly can't hire the new people they need, even though they are reopening safely and doing everything they are supposed to do in terms of the guidelines. They are having a tough time getting back to work. There is an auto plant in Ohio where the white-collar workers are now working on the assembly line because they can't get enough workers who would normally have those jobs to work on the assembly line. So this is a problem right now, and I think everybody acknowledges it except the Democratic negotiators in this negotiation. Now, I don't think we are actually as far apart as the media accounts would suggest because there are lots of ideas out there. One idea, by the way, makes a lot of sense to me, and I am going to offer this in a moment as a resolution for the Senate to take up. I think this is the ultimate common sense--let's keep $600 in place for now while we negotiate something. Let's have an extension for another week on the unemployment insurance at 600 bucks just so we can negotiate something. What you don't want is people to fall off the cliff, and that is starting to happen now. The $600 expired last Friday. So 6 days ago it expired, and 6 days ago, 7 days ago, Martha McSally, a Senator from Arizona, came to this floor and offered this same unanimous consent request, saying: Let's just have 600 for another week. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, objected--instead, offering the $3.5 trillion package from the House. But he didn't respond to why we wouldn't at least give the negotiators a week to come up with something. So I am going to offer that same thing today because I do think it is notfair to have a cliff. I don't think there should be a cliff. I think people should be able to have some level--but not at $600 because that is now understood by everybody to mean that you are disincentivizing work. Americans are a generous people. Back in 2008 and 2009, when we had the great recession, we also did this. By the way, we did $25 a week then. So for Democrats who say this is unprecedented, well, we had 10 percent unemployment back then--very high unemployment--and we did $25. I think we should do a lot more than that now but not so much that people are making more by not working than by working. There are a lot of ideas out there. Again, my ideas--ideas of individual Members--may not be what this body chooses to use, and that is fine. We are not all going to get our way, but we should be able to come up with a compromise here. My idea is to have a return-to-work bonus, so that you are getting the 600 bucks, but you can take some of that money back with you when you go back to work. That would create an incentive to get people back to work and connect people to those businesses as we talked about and the importance of doing that. But there are other ideas as well. There is a plan that was put out recently by two Obama administration veterans, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Jason Furman. They joined with a former H.W. Bush economist Glenn Hubbard to put out a proposal from of the Aspen Institute, hardly a conservative group, that proposes that the unemployment system--not at $600 but to continue at a cap of $400 and have it be determined based unemployment level for the State. The way unemployment works in the States is the States have a benefit, and this Federal benefit is on top of it. Most States provide on average about 50 percent of benefits; $600 is over 100 percent. It is over 130 percent, in fact. So this solution--again, from two Obama administration economists--is that you have $400 as a cap, when unemployment in those States is above 15 percent and zero Federal supplement when the State is at 7 percent or less. It phases out entirely. That is one bipartisan solution that is out there. Instead of insisting on $600, I would hope at least there is a discussion of those kinds of proposals. Senator Romney has a proposal out there that takes the amount from $500 per week in August to $400 to an 80-percent wage replacement phasing out altogether by year-end. Senator McConnell put his proposal out for a $200 amount over a 2-month period as a transition and then goes to a percent of wages. His percent of wages is 70 percent of wages. Again, there is no State that is that high. The States are 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, in that range. So there are ideas out there, and yet the Democrats keep coming back again and again to this notion of: We want it all or nothing. I will state to my colleague from Oregon who is here on the floor, and I am glad he is--he did a very good job for Democrats negotiating this proposal. I told him about it at the time. I know he took pride on it, and he should have. But we also need now to figure out where we go, going forward. None of us should want people to be disincentivized from going to work. We should not have a situation like we have now where, again, you have the leaders on the Democratic side, Speaker Pelosi and Democratic Leader Schumer, saying, ``Today, we have said that we are going to have $600. This is necessary.'' We have to be able to show some flexibility here to be able to break this impasse, to be able to provide for people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and need some help, but not continue to have this policy in place that doesn't work for our economy, for small businesses, and for workers themselves. Let's get the politics out of this. Let's do something that makes sense to be able to move forward on this broader crisis, and I think if we can fix the unemployment insurance issue, we are likely to get there | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5245 | null | 1,160 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it is Thursday afternoon, and it looks like any other Thursday afternoon. There is no sense of urgency. The leader, Senator McConnell, has sent folks on their way for the weekend, and there is no agreement on the COVID-19 survival package, which is what it really is for so many families. We are in a situation where it is another week of not focusing on how we get unemployment extension passed or how we deal with hungry families or make sure people are going to have a roof over their head or support our small businesses or our small family farms or our first responders on the frontlines and others in cities and towns and in States who are providing public services essential to us--people who are in jobs who may lose their jobs if we can't get them the support they need. That is not happening. There are a few nominations--a couple of nominations of judges. Let's put a few more ideologically extreme, rightwing judges on the bench. No sense of urgency. We are here on a Thursday as if it were just regular business. Over 2 months ago, Senator McConnell said he felt no sense of urgency to act on what the House passed, no sense of urgency at all. Over 2\1/2\ months ago, the House of Representatives passed a critical survival package to continue to tackle the pandemic, including testing, supporting our hospitals and nurses and doctors and communities on the frontline who are trying to maintain, manage, and keep us safe--save lives. Senator McConnell said he felt no sense of urgency. He certainly has demonstrated no sense of urgency since that time. He is not even in the negotiations that are going on right now. But this isn't a regular Thursday for folks in Michigan. No. This isn't a regular Thursday, like ``Ho-hum, let's go home for the weekend or longer.'' We have 1.8 million people on unemployment benefits. By the way, we don't have 1.8 million jobs right now that they could get. These aren't folks who just don't want to work. The jobs aren't there because of what has happened with the pandemic and the necessary closures and the challenges going on for businesses large and small. We certainly want to support them to safely be able to reopen, but we have 1.8 million people who, this week--this Friday, as opposed to last Friday--this Friday, tomorrow, when they get help through unemployment, it is going to be about a 60-percent cut--6-0, not 6--a 60-percent cut. Their rent didn't go down 60 percent. Their food didn't go down 60 percent. Their utility bills didn't go down 60 percent. The other things they need to take care of their families didn't go down 60 percent. But their income is going down 60 percent because there is no sense of urgency in this Senate. The Republican majority sees no sense of urgency. It is just another Thursday afternoon. There is no sense of urgency to help people who are trying to figure out what to do right now because everything collapsed when the pandemic hit and their business closed or other challenges took over so they are not able to work right now. What are they going to do? It is not just another Thursday afternoon for them. It is not just another Thursday afternoon for the single mom of two kids in Michigan right now who, frankly, could very well be deciding whether she eats tonight because it is so important that the children eat. She can't do both, so she will go hungry one more time so the kids can eat. We have a hunger emergency in this country right now. It is not just another Thursday for those folks, although they have spent too many Thursdays feeling hungry. It is not just a Thursday for the person who, right now, is probably in their car--maybe they have been there 2, 3, 4 hours--waiting in the food bank line to get some groceries to take home. They used to donate to the food bank, and now they are in a situation in which they have to go to the food bank. They never thought in their wildest dreams that would happen, yet it has. They feel a sense of urgency. It is not just another Thursday afternoon in the Senate for them. They feel a sense of urgency for today and tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday and Monday and on into however long it is going to take to be able to bring our colleagues together. It would be humorous if it just weren't so outrageous to hear colleagues talk about how we need to get something done when the House of Representatives passed a bill 2\1/2\ month ago, the Heroes Act. It came over here and has just been gathering dust on Senator McConnell's desk. We know that negotiation takes time. We know you always have to compromise, and that should have started 2 months ago or a month ago, not after somebody is losing 60 percent of their income trying to hold it together for their family. By the way, we tell people to go home--shelter at home--but their rental protections go away, their mortgage protections go away, and you put more people on the street. That makes a lot of sense in the middle of a health pandemic when we want people to stay home Every move that has happened in this Senate since the House acted has been too little too late, and it is causing more and more devastating consequences as a result of that. I will tell you who doesn't think it is another Thursday, just a normal Thursday afternoon, is 85-year-old retirees I know who are trying to figure out how to get their medicine versus their groceries. By the way, they haven't been out of their house in over 4 months. They are trying to stay connected with their families but are terrified of what is happening. Will what is happening right now be the rest of their life? They certainly feel a sense of urgency for us to act. The moms and dads who want their kids to go back to school safely and are trying to figure it out are saying: Come on. This cannot be my child's education versus their safety. It has to be both. That is not exactly rocket science. It has to be both. I am excited about the Tigers playing now--and their baseball league--and I am excited about the NFL. But if those guys can get tested every day, why can't our teachers? Where are the priorities here? Do they feel a sense of urgency? I can tell you that my son and daughter and their families and my grandkids feel an incredible sense of urgency. They want to go back to school to see their friends. They want to do it safely. They know it has to be safe. It is not either-or. They feel a sense of urgency. They would love this to be just another Thursday afternoon when we end the week and everybody goes home. It is not that for them as they are trying to figure out where they go for childcare or their school. It certainly isn't just another regular day for the teachers trying to figure out what to do. They went into teaching because they love children. They want to teach. They also know they may have their own preexisting conditions. They also have their own children at home. They have to think about their own exposure and how they can be teaching, which they want to do, but it has to be done safely because of all the other issues in their lives as well. I think about the small business owner. We have so many in Michigan. We have the most incredible entrepreneurs in Michigan in every small town as well as in big cities. There are people who poured their hearts and souls and capital and second mortgage on the house and maxed out their credit cards to have the small business they wanted. They are certainly not happy it is just another Thursday afternoon ending the week in the Senate. They are desperate to know how to keep their doors open and the three employees on the payroll. We have done some good work in a bipartisan way on that, which needs to continue.Yet that small business person and the people I talk to in Michigan feel an incredible sense of urgency. I talk to our family farmers who work night and day, battling the weather and low prices and chaotic trade policies. I have talked to someone raising livestock who can't find a processor that they need right now to make the food for hungry families. They certainly feel a tremendous sense of urgency. The reality is that there are millions of people across this country who don't understand what is not happening here--why there is no sense of urgency, why there hasn't been a willingness to come together. Why didn't it happen 2\1/2\ months ago? What is going on? It appears that too many people don't care. This is the United States of America. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world. We invented the assembly line. We put our footprints on the Moon. We are seeing what is happening today. We should never have gotten to this point right now where people are losing 60 percent of their income on unemployment benefits, are hungry trying to feed their kids, worried about losing the roof over their head or their small business or the family farm. We should never have gotten to this point, but here we are. It has been more than 80 days since the House passed the Heroes Act--more than 80 days. Since that time, our essential workers, who deserve hazard pay, have been waiting. Those providing public services in our cities and towns and in States have been waiting for the support they need so that they don't lose their job and we don't lose those public services. Our businesses, our schools, our farmers all have been waiting, waiting, waiting. The reality is it is because it is just another Thursday--just another Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate. Senator McConnell has made it very clear that they are just going to have to wait some more. Right now, we should be voting on an important survival package for people in our country. We should be investing whatever it takes to manage and get our arms around this virus, do the testing, provide the healthcare, remain laser focused on getting vaccines. People should have confidence that everything humanly possible is being done and that there is a sense of urgency here. I feel a sense of urgency. My Democratic colleagues feel the sense of urgency. Through the actions on this floor, we do not see that the Senate Republican majority feels the sense of urgency that every single person in Michigan feels right now. We need to take action. People are tired of waiting. They can't afford to wait any longer. This is about their lives and their livelihoods. People need help. The Congress, working with the President, needs to provide that help, and there is no excuse not to act. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. STABENOW | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5252 | null | 1,161 |
formal | single mom | null | racist | Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it is Thursday afternoon, and it looks like any other Thursday afternoon. There is no sense of urgency. The leader, Senator McConnell, has sent folks on their way for the weekend, and there is no agreement on the COVID-19 survival package, which is what it really is for so many families. We are in a situation where it is another week of not focusing on how we get unemployment extension passed or how we deal with hungry families or make sure people are going to have a roof over their head or support our small businesses or our small family farms or our first responders on the frontlines and others in cities and towns and in States who are providing public services essential to us--people who are in jobs who may lose their jobs if we can't get them the support they need. That is not happening. There are a few nominations--a couple of nominations of judges. Let's put a few more ideologically extreme, rightwing judges on the bench. No sense of urgency. We are here on a Thursday as if it were just regular business. Over 2 months ago, Senator McConnell said he felt no sense of urgency to act on what the House passed, no sense of urgency at all. Over 2\1/2\ months ago, the House of Representatives passed a critical survival package to continue to tackle the pandemic, including testing, supporting our hospitals and nurses and doctors and communities on the frontline who are trying to maintain, manage, and keep us safe--save lives. Senator McConnell said he felt no sense of urgency. He certainly has demonstrated no sense of urgency since that time. He is not even in the negotiations that are going on right now. But this isn't a regular Thursday for folks in Michigan. No. This isn't a regular Thursday, like ``Ho-hum, let's go home for the weekend or longer.'' We have 1.8 million people on unemployment benefits. By the way, we don't have 1.8 million jobs right now that they could get. These aren't folks who just don't want to work. The jobs aren't there because of what has happened with the pandemic and the necessary closures and the challenges going on for businesses large and small. We certainly want to support them to safely be able to reopen, but we have 1.8 million people who, this week--this Friday, as opposed to last Friday--this Friday, tomorrow, when they get help through unemployment, it is going to be about a 60-percent cut--6-0, not 6--a 60-percent cut. Their rent didn't go down 60 percent. Their food didn't go down 60 percent. Their utility bills didn't go down 60 percent. The other things they need to take care of their families didn't go down 60 percent. But their income is going down 60 percent because there is no sense of urgency in this Senate. The Republican majority sees no sense of urgency. It is just another Thursday afternoon. There is no sense of urgency to help people who are trying to figure out what to do right now because everything collapsed when the pandemic hit and their business closed or other challenges took over so they are not able to work right now. What are they going to do? It is not just another Thursday afternoon for them. It is not just another Thursday afternoon for the single mom of two kids in Michigan right now who, frankly, could very well be deciding whether she eats tonight because it is so important that the children eat. She can't do both, so she will go hungry one more time so the kids can eat. We have a hunger emergency in this country right now. It is not just another Thursday for those folks, although they have spent too many Thursdays feeling hungry. It is not just a Thursday for the person who, right now, is probably in their car--maybe they have been there 2, 3, 4 hours--waiting in the food bank line to get some groceries to take home. They used to donate to the food bank, and now they are in a situation in which they have to go to the food bank. They never thought in their wildest dreams that would happen, yet it has. They feel a sense of urgency. It is not just another Thursday afternoon in the Senate for them. They feel a sense of urgency for today and tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday and Monday and on into however long it is going to take to be able to bring our colleagues together. It would be humorous if it just weren't so outrageous to hear colleagues talk about how we need to get something done when the House of Representatives passed a bill 2\1/2\ month ago, the Heroes Act. It came over here and has just been gathering dust on Senator McConnell's desk. We know that negotiation takes time. We know you always have to compromise, and that should have started 2 months ago or a month ago, not after somebody is losing 60 percent of their income trying to hold it together for their family. By the way, we tell people to go home--shelter at home--but their rental protections go away, their mortgage protections go away, and you put more people on the street. That makes a lot of sense in the middle of a health pandemic when we want people to stay home Every move that has happened in this Senate since the House acted has been too little too late, and it is causing more and more devastating consequences as a result of that. I will tell you who doesn't think it is another Thursday, just a normal Thursday afternoon, is 85-year-old retirees I know who are trying to figure out how to get their medicine versus their groceries. By the way, they haven't been out of their house in over 4 months. They are trying to stay connected with their families but are terrified of what is happening. Will what is happening right now be the rest of their life? They certainly feel a sense of urgency for us to act. The moms and dads who want their kids to go back to school safely and are trying to figure it out are saying: Come on. This cannot be my child's education versus their safety. It has to be both. That is not exactly rocket science. It has to be both. I am excited about the Tigers playing now--and their baseball league--and I am excited about the NFL. But if those guys can get tested every day, why can't our teachers? Where are the priorities here? Do they feel a sense of urgency? I can tell you that my son and daughter and their families and my grandkids feel an incredible sense of urgency. They want to go back to school to see their friends. They want to do it safely. They know it has to be safe. It is not either-or. They feel a sense of urgency. They would love this to be just another Thursday afternoon when we end the week and everybody goes home. It is not that for them as they are trying to figure out where they go for childcare or their school. It certainly isn't just another regular day for the teachers trying to figure out what to do. They went into teaching because they love children. They want to teach. They also know they may have their own preexisting conditions. They also have their own children at home. They have to think about their own exposure and how they can be teaching, which they want to do, but it has to be done safely because of all the other issues in their lives as well. I think about the small business owner. We have so many in Michigan. We have the most incredible entrepreneurs in Michigan in every small town as well as in big cities. There are people who poured their hearts and souls and capital and second mortgage on the house and maxed out their credit cards to have the small business they wanted. They are certainly not happy it is just another Thursday afternoon ending the week in the Senate. They are desperate to know how to keep their doors open and the three employees on the payroll. We have done some good work in a bipartisan way on that, which needs to continue.Yet that small business person and the people I talk to in Michigan feel an incredible sense of urgency. I talk to our family farmers who work night and day, battling the weather and low prices and chaotic trade policies. I have talked to someone raising livestock who can't find a processor that they need right now to make the food for hungry families. They certainly feel a tremendous sense of urgency. The reality is that there are millions of people across this country who don't understand what is not happening here--why there is no sense of urgency, why there hasn't been a willingness to come together. Why didn't it happen 2\1/2\ months ago? What is going on? It appears that too many people don't care. This is the United States of America. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world. We invented the assembly line. We put our footprints on the Moon. We are seeing what is happening today. We should never have gotten to this point right now where people are losing 60 percent of their income on unemployment benefits, are hungry trying to feed their kids, worried about losing the roof over their head or their small business or the family farm. We should never have gotten to this point, but here we are. It has been more than 80 days since the House passed the Heroes Act--more than 80 days. Since that time, our essential workers, who deserve hazard pay, have been waiting. Those providing public services in our cities and towns and in States have been waiting for the support they need so that they don't lose their job and we don't lose those public services. Our businesses, our schools, our farmers all have been waiting, waiting, waiting. The reality is it is because it is just another Thursday--just another Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate. Senator McConnell has made it very clear that they are just going to have to wait some more. Right now, we should be voting on an important survival package for people in our country. We should be investing whatever it takes to manage and get our arms around this virus, do the testing, provide the healthcare, remain laser focused on getting vaccines. People should have confidence that everything humanly possible is being done and that there is a sense of urgency here. I feel a sense of urgency. My Democratic colleagues feel the sense of urgency. Through the actions on this floor, we do not see that the Senate Republican majority feels the sense of urgency that every single person in Michigan feels right now. We need to take action. People are tired of waiting. They can't afford to wait any longer. This is about their lives and their livelihoods. People need help. The Congress, working with the President, needs to provide that help, and there is no excuse not to act. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. STABENOW | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5252 | null | 1,162 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, here we are--another Thursday afternoon in the Senate. It is pretty quiet around here. It is amazing how quickly this place gets quiet when the Senate majority leader, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, tells people: We don't have any more work to do today. By the way, we don't have any more work to do tomorrow, Friday. By the way, don't worry about Saturday or Sunday. Monday, you know, I will be here, says the Majority leader, but the Senate doesn't need to be here doing its work--maybe not Tuesday or Wednesday either. I want to thank the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, for being down here, standing up for working men and women and families and small businesses because, for them, it is not business as usual. It is not business as usual for all the folks who are out of work. Thirty million Americans are on unemployment insurance, but here in the Senate, for the Senate majority leader, it is business as usual. Take a day off. Take the weekend off. Be on standby next week. Maybe we will start doing something real. I can tell you the coronavirus is not on standby. The coronavirus is not taking a day off or 2 days off. It is continuing to spread in many parts of the country. We don't have enough testing equipment. We are not able to test people quickly. It takes people days and days and days and, in some cases, weeks to get their results. We hear the President of the United States saying he wants to open up the economy and open up schools. We all want to open up the economy. We all want our children back in school, for classrooms are the best place for learning. But do you know what? You can't just wish for that to happen, just like you can't wish for the coronavirus to go away, and that makes it go away. You need to do real work. You need the testing equipment so that we can test people in realtime and make sure that we prevent further outbreaks. We don't want bonfires to turn into brush fires to turn into prairie fires. You need to catch the virus and contain it. You can't do that if you don't have testing equipment. So the virus is not taking a day off or 2 or 3 or a week, and we shouldn't either. This Senate needs to do its job. We are in the middle of a pandemic. This is not a normal August. This should not be business as usual, and as Senator Stabenow said, we should not be here, at this moment, with important protections having already expired. This Senate sat by and did nothing while the protections against evictions expired. The eviction moratorium that was protecting millions of Americans--gone. The extra $600 a week in unemployment--gone. Yet here we are with the majority leader saying: Take Friday off. Take Saturday off. Business as usual. Well, that is a difficult thing to tell families and workers and small businesses around the country, and it cannot be business as usual. The House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act more than 2\1/2\ months ago. It realized that after we passed the CARES Act in a bipartisan way, important protections were going to expire, and it acted. The House made sure it passed legislation to extend the enhanced unemployment of $600 a week. It passed legislation to extend the eviction moratorium. It provided additional food assistance for our kids. It provided important funds for rental assistance, which not only helps tenants stay in their apartments and homes but provides the payments to the landlords so the landlords can make the payments to the people they owe money to and on up the economic food chain. The House did all of that, and what did the Senate do for 2\1/2\ months? Nothing. Nothing. It is like a train is heading right for you, and you stand in the middle of the tracks until it hits you when any commonsense person would do what the House of Representatives did, which was to take action to make sure that we didn't cross these deadlines and cause unnecessary harm to millions of American families, workers, and small businesses. That is what the Senate has done. Now, even after we are into those deadlines--we have crossed those deadlines--what does the majority leader here, the Republican leader, say? Take tomorrow off. Take the weekend off. Take Monday off. In fact, the Senate may not come in for a while. I mean, we will come in, but there will be no voting, no real business. Let me tell you what I am hearing from my constituents, because I know it is not different from what other Members are hearing from theirs. Here is a letter I received from a single mom. I live . . . with my 15-year-old son as a single mother. I am asking for your help in voting to extend the $600 Federal unemployment benefit. I understand a lot of politicians do not want this extended due to the thought that the benefit is too great and will prevent Marylanders from wanting to return back to work, in that they make more money from staying at home off of the State/government this way. Now, we all know, if your job calls you back during this time and you choose not to return, your benefits are going to be cut off anyway. As for me, I am losing thousands of dollars each month being out of work and am barely scraping by as it is now with the extra $600. I desperately WANT TO RETURN to work and make my regular salary, which is more. I am very thankful for the extra $600 a week and have no idea how I would have survived without it during this time. I have zero other means to any money or credit. I have been able to pay my rent, feed my son, and pay some bills. I have deferred my car payment until August and am behind on car insurance. I am desperately asking for your help and the help of the government to extend this extra $600 a week benefit for a little while longer. Not to sound ungrateful, but an extra $100 or $200 per week is just not enough to help pay rent and other bills. Cutting this benefit abruptly will cause such economic hardship and devastation to so many Americans. This is a single mother, with a 15-year-old son, who is pleading with the U.S. Senate to do its job. And what does the majority leader say to Senators? Take tomorrow off. Take Saturday off. Take Sunday off. Take Monday off. I want to read another letter I received on this subject. Here is what my constituent wrote: I am emailing in hopes of asking for your support to extend the $600 Federal assistance in addition to unemployment. While I realize that the country has to spend more and more during this pandemic, many of us are learning our temporary layoffs are now permanent (I received the call yesterday) and our industries are still completely shut down. I have always worked in the hotel industry and have no further education or experience than that. The hospitality industry is the hardest hit during this pandemic. While I search multiple times a day for jobs, they simply are not open because the industry has not yet recovered. In fact, our industry is downsizing immensely I am a single mother to one 5-year-old boy who will start kindergarten in the fall. We do not receive any financial assistance through the State, such as housing assistance or child support. Maryland unemployment of $430 per week will not even cover the rent costs, and we will quickly be evicted with no options for housing. I am not looking to make more money than I was at my job. That is not possible. I grossed $75,000 in 2019, but I am looking to be able to pay my rent and bills and part-time childcare because it is in the best interest of my son to have social interaction and education during the pandemic even if I am not working. Please--I beg you--please support the extension of the $600 per week benefit. Now, I have heard a lot of Senators on this floor over weeks and months talk about how we just cannot extend $600 a week. Yet we hear from these moms and parents who are pleading for that help so that they can simply pay their bills and get by. Even with that, they are not able to pay all of their bills. The Republican leader says to the U.S. Senate: Take a day off. Take 2 days off. Next week, I will be in, says the majority leader, but I don't need for the Senate to be in, doing its work. What are we all here for? We should be here 24/7, working around the clock together to resolve these issues. We have a lot of multi, multi, multimillionaires in this U.S. Senate, and it is really rich for all of us to be telling families out there that the extra $600 per week is too much. That is just too much. These are individuals who want to go back to work. I just read to you a letter from someone who works in the hospitality industry. That is her experience. That is what she knows. I don't know if our Republican colleagues have checked recently, but the unemployment rate is around 15 percent. There are a lot of people out there who are looking for work who can't find it. They can't find it because we are in the middle of a pandemic, and that has caused a lot of small businesses and others to shut down in order to make sure that we stop the spread of the virus. These are people who want to get back to work. They want nothing better than that. They want their children back in school. All of us do. Yet we have a failed, botched Federal response, starting with the White House--starting with the President, who has made this a political issue when it has to be a health issue. It has made the problem a lot worse, and we all know it. We all know that this pandemic is lasting longer in the United States and has killed more people in the United States because of a totally failed response right from the top, and we should not be complicit in that. We should do our job. We have the majority leader, the Republican leader. What is he saying? He is not even part of the negotiations, right? He says: You know, I am in my Republican caucus lunches, and, reportedly, only half of the Republican Senators want to do anything. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what Republican Senators are saying on national television. That is what we are hearing from the Republican caucus. So, if that is not true, it would be great to hear all of the Republican Senators come down to the floor and talk about what they are willing to do, not what they are not willing to do. Because there are not the votes there, the majority leader has contracted out his negotiation authority to the White House, and he has told the Senate to go home. Let's just start doing our job here in the U.S. Senate. Nobody should be contracting out his job and his vote and his negotiating authority to the White House. This is the U.S. Senate. I don't know what people ran for if they just want to say: Oh, I can't deal with this because my caucus doesn't support any response. Go talk to the White House. In the meantime in the Senate, take Friday off. Take Saturday off. Take Sunday off. Maybe take Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday off, too. That is a hell of a message to send to the American people in the middle of a pandemic during which so many people are hurting. I will end with this. Instead of the majority leader's coming down to the floor today and telling everybody to go away, we should stay here. We should stay here, and we should do our job. Doing our job means coming together with the next round of emergency legislation to slow down and then stop the spread of the virus and help the millions of Americans who are in tremendous economic pain right now. This is not business as usual. The Senate needs to do its job. Let's stay here and get it done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5253 | null | 1,163 |
formal | single mom | null | racist | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, here we are--another Thursday afternoon in the Senate. It is pretty quiet around here. It is amazing how quickly this place gets quiet when the Senate majority leader, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, tells people: We don't have any more work to do today. By the way, we don't have any more work to do tomorrow, Friday. By the way, don't worry about Saturday or Sunday. Monday, you know, I will be here, says the Majority leader, but the Senate doesn't need to be here doing its work--maybe not Tuesday or Wednesday either. I want to thank the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, for being down here, standing up for working men and women and families and small businesses because, for them, it is not business as usual. It is not business as usual for all the folks who are out of work. Thirty million Americans are on unemployment insurance, but here in the Senate, for the Senate majority leader, it is business as usual. Take a day off. Take the weekend off. Be on standby next week. Maybe we will start doing something real. I can tell you the coronavirus is not on standby. The coronavirus is not taking a day off or 2 days off. It is continuing to spread in many parts of the country. We don't have enough testing equipment. We are not able to test people quickly. It takes people days and days and days and, in some cases, weeks to get their results. We hear the President of the United States saying he wants to open up the economy and open up schools. We all want to open up the economy. We all want our children back in school, for classrooms are the best place for learning. But do you know what? You can't just wish for that to happen, just like you can't wish for the coronavirus to go away, and that makes it go away. You need to do real work. You need the testing equipment so that we can test people in realtime and make sure that we prevent further outbreaks. We don't want bonfires to turn into brush fires to turn into prairie fires. You need to catch the virus and contain it. You can't do that if you don't have testing equipment. So the virus is not taking a day off or 2 or 3 or a week, and we shouldn't either. This Senate needs to do its job. We are in the middle of a pandemic. This is not a normal August. This should not be business as usual, and as Senator Stabenow said, we should not be here, at this moment, with important protections having already expired. This Senate sat by and did nothing while the protections against evictions expired. The eviction moratorium that was protecting millions of Americans--gone. The extra $600 a week in unemployment--gone. Yet here we are with the majority leader saying: Take Friday off. Take Saturday off. Business as usual. Well, that is a difficult thing to tell families and workers and small businesses around the country, and it cannot be business as usual. The House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act more than 2\1/2\ months ago. It realized that after we passed the CARES Act in a bipartisan way, important protections were going to expire, and it acted. The House made sure it passed legislation to extend the enhanced unemployment of $600 a week. It passed legislation to extend the eviction moratorium. It provided additional food assistance for our kids. It provided important funds for rental assistance, which not only helps tenants stay in their apartments and homes but provides the payments to the landlords so the landlords can make the payments to the people they owe money to and on up the economic food chain. The House did all of that, and what did the Senate do for 2\1/2\ months? Nothing. Nothing. It is like a train is heading right for you, and you stand in the middle of the tracks until it hits you when any commonsense person would do what the House of Representatives did, which was to take action to make sure that we didn't cross these deadlines and cause unnecessary harm to millions of American families, workers, and small businesses. That is what the Senate has done. Now, even after we are into those deadlines--we have crossed those deadlines--what does the majority leader here, the Republican leader, say? Take tomorrow off. Take the weekend off. Take Monday off. In fact, the Senate may not come in for a while. I mean, we will come in, but there will be no voting, no real business. Let me tell you what I am hearing from my constituents, because I know it is not different from what other Members are hearing from theirs. Here is a letter I received from a single mom. I live . . . with my 15-year-old son as a single mother. I am asking for your help in voting to extend the $600 Federal unemployment benefit. I understand a lot of politicians do not want this extended due to the thought that the benefit is too great and will prevent Marylanders from wanting to return back to work, in that they make more money from staying at home off of the State/government this way. Now, we all know, if your job calls you back during this time and you choose not to return, your benefits are going to be cut off anyway. As for me, I am losing thousands of dollars each month being out of work and am barely scraping by as it is now with the extra $600. I desperately WANT TO RETURN to work and make my regular salary, which is more. I am very thankful for the extra $600 a week and have no idea how I would have survived without it during this time. I have zero other means to any money or credit. I have been able to pay my rent, feed my son, and pay some bills. I have deferred my car payment until August and am behind on car insurance. I am desperately asking for your help and the help of the government to extend this extra $600 a week benefit for a little while longer. Not to sound ungrateful, but an extra $100 or $200 per week is just not enough to help pay rent and other bills. Cutting this benefit abruptly will cause such economic hardship and devastation to so many Americans. This is a single mother, with a 15-year-old son, who is pleading with the U.S. Senate to do its job. And what does the majority leader say to Senators? Take tomorrow off. Take Saturday off. Take Sunday off. Take Monday off. I want to read another letter I received on this subject. Here is what my constituent wrote: I am emailing in hopes of asking for your support to extend the $600 Federal assistance in addition to unemployment. While I realize that the country has to spend more and more during this pandemic, many of us are learning our temporary layoffs are now permanent (I received the call yesterday) and our industries are still completely shut down. I have always worked in the hotel industry and have no further education or experience than that. The hospitality industry is the hardest hit during this pandemic. While I search multiple times a day for jobs, they simply are not open because the industry has not yet recovered. In fact, our industry is downsizing immensely I am a single mother to one 5-year-old boy who will start kindergarten in the fall. We do not receive any financial assistance through the State, such as housing assistance or child support. Maryland unemployment of $430 per week will not even cover the rent costs, and we will quickly be evicted with no options for housing. I am not looking to make more money than I was at my job. That is not possible. I grossed $75,000 in 2019, but I am looking to be able to pay my rent and bills and part-time childcare because it is in the best interest of my son to have social interaction and education during the pandemic even if I am not working. Please--I beg you--please support the extension of the $600 per week benefit. Now, I have heard a lot of Senators on this floor over weeks and months talk about how we just cannot extend $600 a week. Yet we hear from these moms and parents who are pleading for that help so that they can simply pay their bills and get by. Even with that, they are not able to pay all of their bills. The Republican leader says to the U.S. Senate: Take a day off. Take 2 days off. Next week, I will be in, says the majority leader, but I don't need for the Senate to be in, doing its work. What are we all here for? We should be here 24/7, working around the clock together to resolve these issues. We have a lot of multi, multi, multimillionaires in this U.S. Senate, and it is really rich for all of us to be telling families out there that the extra $600 per week is too much. That is just too much. These are individuals who want to go back to work. I just read to you a letter from someone who works in the hospitality industry. That is her experience. That is what she knows. I don't know if our Republican colleagues have checked recently, but the unemployment rate is around 15 percent. There are a lot of people out there who are looking for work who can't find it. They can't find it because we are in the middle of a pandemic, and that has caused a lot of small businesses and others to shut down in order to make sure that we stop the spread of the virus. These are people who want to get back to work. They want nothing better than that. They want their children back in school. All of us do. Yet we have a failed, botched Federal response, starting with the White House--starting with the President, who has made this a political issue when it has to be a health issue. It has made the problem a lot worse, and we all know it. We all know that this pandemic is lasting longer in the United States and has killed more people in the United States because of a totally failed response right from the top, and we should not be complicit in that. We should do our job. We have the majority leader, the Republican leader. What is he saying? He is not even part of the negotiations, right? He says: You know, I am in my Republican caucus lunches, and, reportedly, only half of the Republican Senators want to do anything. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what Republican Senators are saying on national television. That is what we are hearing from the Republican caucus. So, if that is not true, it would be great to hear all of the Republican Senators come down to the floor and talk about what they are willing to do, not what they are not willing to do. Because there are not the votes there, the majority leader has contracted out his negotiation authority to the White House, and he has told the Senate to go home. Let's just start doing our job here in the U.S. Senate. Nobody should be contracting out his job and his vote and his negotiating authority to the White House. This is the U.S. Senate. I don't know what people ran for if they just want to say: Oh, I can't deal with this because my caucus doesn't support any response. Go talk to the White House. In the meantime in the Senate, take Friday off. Take Saturday off. Take Sunday off. Maybe take Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday off, too. That is a hell of a message to send to the American people in the middle of a pandemic during which so many people are hurting. I will end with this. Instead of the majority leader's coming down to the floor today and telling everybody to go away, we should stay here. We should stay here, and we should do our job. Doing our job means coming together with the next round of emergency legislation to slow down and then stop the spread of the virus and help the millions of Americans who are in tremendous economic pain right now. This is not business as usual. The Senate needs to do its job. Let's stay here and get it done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5253 | null | 1,164 |
formal | single mother | null | racist | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, here we are--another Thursday afternoon in the Senate. It is pretty quiet around here. It is amazing how quickly this place gets quiet when the Senate majority leader, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, tells people: We don't have any more work to do today. By the way, we don't have any more work to do tomorrow, Friday. By the way, don't worry about Saturday or Sunday. Monday, you know, I will be here, says the Majority leader, but the Senate doesn't need to be here doing its work--maybe not Tuesday or Wednesday either. I want to thank the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, for being down here, standing up for working men and women and families and small businesses because, for them, it is not business as usual. It is not business as usual for all the folks who are out of work. Thirty million Americans are on unemployment insurance, but here in the Senate, for the Senate majority leader, it is business as usual. Take a day off. Take the weekend off. Be on standby next week. Maybe we will start doing something real. I can tell you the coronavirus is not on standby. The coronavirus is not taking a day off or 2 days off. It is continuing to spread in many parts of the country. We don't have enough testing equipment. We are not able to test people quickly. It takes people days and days and days and, in some cases, weeks to get their results. We hear the President of the United States saying he wants to open up the economy and open up schools. We all want to open up the economy. We all want our children back in school, for classrooms are the best place for learning. But do you know what? You can't just wish for that to happen, just like you can't wish for the coronavirus to go away, and that makes it go away. You need to do real work. You need the testing equipment so that we can test people in realtime and make sure that we prevent further outbreaks. We don't want bonfires to turn into brush fires to turn into prairie fires. You need to catch the virus and contain it. You can't do that if you don't have testing equipment. So the virus is not taking a day off or 2 or 3 or a week, and we shouldn't either. This Senate needs to do its job. We are in the middle of a pandemic. This is not a normal August. This should not be business as usual, and as Senator Stabenow said, we should not be here, at this moment, with important protections having already expired. This Senate sat by and did nothing while the protections against evictions expired. The eviction moratorium that was protecting millions of Americans--gone. The extra $600 a week in unemployment--gone. Yet here we are with the majority leader saying: Take Friday off. Take Saturday off. Business as usual. Well, that is a difficult thing to tell families and workers and small businesses around the country, and it cannot be business as usual. The House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act more than 2\1/2\ months ago. It realized that after we passed the CARES Act in a bipartisan way, important protections were going to expire, and it acted. The House made sure it passed legislation to extend the enhanced unemployment of $600 a week. It passed legislation to extend the eviction moratorium. It provided additional food assistance for our kids. It provided important funds for rental assistance, which not only helps tenants stay in their apartments and homes but provides the payments to the landlords so the landlords can make the payments to the people they owe money to and on up the economic food chain. The House did all of that, and what did the Senate do for 2\1/2\ months? Nothing. Nothing. It is like a train is heading right for you, and you stand in the middle of the tracks until it hits you when any commonsense person would do what the House of Representatives did, which was to take action to make sure that we didn't cross these deadlines and cause unnecessary harm to millions of American families, workers, and small businesses. That is what the Senate has done. Now, even after we are into those deadlines--we have crossed those deadlines--what does the majority leader here, the Republican leader, say? Take tomorrow off. Take the weekend off. Take Monday off. In fact, the Senate may not come in for a while. I mean, we will come in, but there will be no voting, no real business. Let me tell you what I am hearing from my constituents, because I know it is not different from what other Members are hearing from theirs. Here is a letter I received from a single mom. I live . . . with my 15-year-old son as a single mother. I am asking for your help in voting to extend the $600 Federal unemployment benefit. I understand a lot of politicians do not want this extended due to the thought that the benefit is too great and will prevent Marylanders from wanting to return back to work, in that they make more money from staying at home off of the State/government this way. Now, we all know, if your job calls you back during this time and you choose not to return, your benefits are going to be cut off anyway. As for me, I am losing thousands of dollars each month being out of work and am barely scraping by as it is now with the extra $600. I desperately WANT TO RETURN to work and make my regular salary, which is more. I am very thankful for the extra $600 a week and have no idea how I would have survived without it during this time. I have zero other means to any money or credit. I have been able to pay my rent, feed my son, and pay some bills. I have deferred my car payment until August and am behind on car insurance. I am desperately asking for your help and the help of the government to extend this extra $600 a week benefit for a little while longer. Not to sound ungrateful, but an extra $100 or $200 per week is just not enough to help pay rent and other bills. Cutting this benefit abruptly will cause such economic hardship and devastation to so many Americans. This is a single mother, with a 15-year-old son, who is pleading with the U.S. Senate to do its job. And what does the majority leader say to Senators? Take tomorrow off. Take Saturday off. Take Sunday off. Take Monday off. I want to read another letter I received on this subject. Here is what my constituent wrote: I am emailing in hopes of asking for your support to extend the $600 Federal assistance in addition to unemployment. While I realize that the country has to spend more and more during this pandemic, many of us are learning our temporary layoffs are now permanent (I received the call yesterday) and our industries are still completely shut down. I have always worked in the hotel industry and have no further education or experience than that. The hospitality industry is the hardest hit during this pandemic. While I search multiple times a day for jobs, they simply are not open because the industry has not yet recovered. In fact, our industry is downsizing immensely I am a single mother to one 5-year-old boy who will start kindergarten in the fall. We do not receive any financial assistance through the State, such as housing assistance or child support. Maryland unemployment of $430 per week will not even cover the rent costs, and we will quickly be evicted with no options for housing. I am not looking to make more money than I was at my job. That is not possible. I grossed $75,000 in 2019, but I am looking to be able to pay my rent and bills and part-time childcare because it is in the best interest of my son to have social interaction and education during the pandemic even if I am not working. Please--I beg you--please support the extension of the $600 per week benefit. Now, I have heard a lot of Senators on this floor over weeks and months talk about how we just cannot extend $600 a week. Yet we hear from these moms and parents who are pleading for that help so that they can simply pay their bills and get by. Even with that, they are not able to pay all of their bills. The Republican leader says to the U.S. Senate: Take a day off. Take 2 days off. Next week, I will be in, says the majority leader, but I don't need for the Senate to be in, doing its work. What are we all here for? We should be here 24/7, working around the clock together to resolve these issues. We have a lot of multi, multi, multimillionaires in this U.S. Senate, and it is really rich for all of us to be telling families out there that the extra $600 per week is too much. That is just too much. These are individuals who want to go back to work. I just read to you a letter from someone who works in the hospitality industry. That is her experience. That is what she knows. I don't know if our Republican colleagues have checked recently, but the unemployment rate is around 15 percent. There are a lot of people out there who are looking for work who can't find it. They can't find it because we are in the middle of a pandemic, and that has caused a lot of small businesses and others to shut down in order to make sure that we stop the spread of the virus. These are people who want to get back to work. They want nothing better than that. They want their children back in school. All of us do. Yet we have a failed, botched Federal response, starting with the White House--starting with the President, who has made this a political issue when it has to be a health issue. It has made the problem a lot worse, and we all know it. We all know that this pandemic is lasting longer in the United States and has killed more people in the United States because of a totally failed response right from the top, and we should not be complicit in that. We should do our job. We have the majority leader, the Republican leader. What is he saying? He is not even part of the negotiations, right? He says: You know, I am in my Republican caucus lunches, and, reportedly, only half of the Republican Senators want to do anything. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what Republican Senators are saying on national television. That is what we are hearing from the Republican caucus. So, if that is not true, it would be great to hear all of the Republican Senators come down to the floor and talk about what they are willing to do, not what they are not willing to do. Because there are not the votes there, the majority leader has contracted out his negotiation authority to the White House, and he has told the Senate to go home. Let's just start doing our job here in the U.S. Senate. Nobody should be contracting out his job and his vote and his negotiating authority to the White House. This is the U.S. Senate. I don't know what people ran for if they just want to say: Oh, I can't deal with this because my caucus doesn't support any response. Go talk to the White House. In the meantime in the Senate, take Friday off. Take Saturday off. Take Sunday off. Maybe take Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday off, too. That is a hell of a message to send to the American people in the middle of a pandemic during which so many people are hurting. I will end with this. Instead of the majority leader's coming down to the floor today and telling everybody to go away, we should stay here. We should stay here, and we should do our job. Doing our job means coming together with the next round of emergency legislation to slow down and then stop the spread of the virus and help the millions of Americans who are in tremendous economic pain right now. This is not business as usual. The Senate needs to do its job. Let's stay here and get it done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5253 | null | 1,165 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues this afternoon in asking: Is this just another Thursday--is this just another afternoon in a week, in an average year, or in an average August--when it is fine for all of us to simply head to our other commitments and concerns? Sometimes here in Washington it is awfully easy to feel and be disconnected--disconnected from the daily concerns and grinding anxiety of the pressing issues that make the lives of the folks we represent so different. I want to start by reminding us of something a Senator--a Senator from Minnesota--once said in the 1970s. It was Hubert Humphrey who said: The moral character of a society can best be gauged by how they treat those at the dawn of life, its children; those in the shadows of life, the disabled, the disadvantaged; and those in the twilight of life, senior citizens. Well, if that were the measure of this place in this day and this time, then we are failing. I think every person here, every person listening or watching knows that we are in the midst of three crises at the same time: a global pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic, in which a highly transmissive disease has spread rapidly across the world. Many other nations have gotten ahead of it, have managed it, have stabilized it, but here in the United States, we have failed to get our arms around it, to stop it, and to deliver the coordinated resources and supplies needed to give some confidence, some positive direction in our public health infrastructure; in our schools, in our senior skilled nursing centers; in our communities. It has gotten away from us. More than 150,000 Americans have died so far, and States that thought they had it well under control are seeing it reemerge, and States that early on saw no impact are seeing record deaths and infections. And coming right on the heels of it, a recession--a recession deep and sharp. In the last quarter, a nearly 40-percent drop in our GDP; the sharpest since we began recording that. And then third, a renewed focus on inequality in our country. We have seen, because of this pandemic and recession and because of the brutal killing of George Floyd, a reminder of the ways in which we are unequal in our access to healthcare, our access to opportunity, our access to housing. So that is the environment we are in. Several months ago, we all came to this floor and unanimously voted--unanimously, in this bitter and divided partisan time, we unanimously voted to deliver $2.3 trillion in assistance and support that sent checks to individual Americans and families, that sent checks to those who were newly unemployed, that sent support for smallbusinesses at risk of going under, that sent support to State and local governments, that sent support to hospitals. It was the single largest spending bill since the Second World War--some reminder of just the seriousness, the gravity, and the scale of this challenge. And 2 months later, the House of Representatives took up and passed the Heroes Act--another $3 trillion to provide support across many of those same areas. And for weeks, this body, the majority, failed to act, to propose an alternative, to take it up and examine it, to send something back, to put something on the table. It was just this Monday, the 27th of July, that we got to see the answer, and that answer fails to meet this moment. I am from a small State, the State of Delaware--a State below a million people. Our Department of Labor, since March, has received over 130,000 claims for unemployment in a State of less than 1 million. More than 1 in 10 Delawareans have filed for unemployment assistance. We have had huge challenges delivering all over our country the assistance we voted on months ago. Out of that 130,000, 27,000 of them are still waiting to get their unemployment checks. My office and other offices in our delegation are helping hundreds of individuals and families who have called, who have emailed, who have texted, and who have reached out for help. And yet, this body, through inaction, allowed the additional $600 a week in unemployment insurance that has sustained so many families to expire because we can't work out a simple agreement on how severe this moment is, on how deep the need is, and on what the right path forward is. When I talk to my Governor, my mayor, my county executive in my home State, in my city, my county, one of their biggest needs is for additional support for State and local governments. There is robust support in the Heroes Act sent over by the House--$875 billion. That is a lot of money. There is nothing in the HEALS Act presented this Monday. And why? So far, 1.5 million public employees, public servants--State, county, local employees--have been laid off. And some folks I hear on television talking about this speak as if they are faceless bureaucrats in gray buildings. But they are teachers; they are paramedics; they are nurses in county hospitals; they are the folks who administer these unemployment claims. They are the folks who help support small businesses. They are the folks who help make sure our water is drinkable, that our parks are mowed, that our libraries are functional, and that our schools can open safely This moment is the tale of two worlds--a world in the House of Representatives that says we are in a crisis and an emergency, and when the American people see a challenge this big, this deep, they often look to our Federal Government for the resources that will make it possible for their States and their counties and their communities, for their hospital, for their school to get through. And here there has been a resounding silence for weeks. I hear week in and week out from parents, from teachers, from paraprofessionals, anxious: How are our schools going to reopen? What is the plan? Where are the resources? What are the details? How do we get testing? How do we get personal equipment--personal protective equipment? Even now there are conversations urgently going on in my home State about how and when and where we will be able to reopen. When it comes to childcare, millions of Americans are unable to return to work because there isn't support for childcare. And when it comes to small businesses, thousands have closed their doors; thousands more are at risk. We will not get through this unless we can pull together and deliver a sustained and meaningful response. So to my colleagues and friends, I don't know where the rest of our colleagues are. I don't know what they are hearing, but I know what I am hearing from my constituents in Delaware. The way they make sure that we don't get disconnected from our home when we are here in Washington, boy, they text; they email; they call; they post on social media. Some even still write good old-fashioned letters. And the thousands of letters and emails and comments that I got in the first few weeks of this pandemic and recession motivated me--motivated this entire body--to vote unanimously on the CARES Act, one of the biggest moments of Federal assistance in our Nation's history. So what is going on now? Why the lack of focus? Why the sense this is just another Thursday afternoon? Well, let me read to you for a few minutes from a few of the folks who have reached out to me from my home State. Christine in Wilmington lost her job, now, months ago. She is a single mother. She is raising a 12-year-old son. She got just one unemployment insurance check. She has been barely hanging on, and ultimately had to sell her car to buy groceries. She sent me a message, painful in its focus on the urgency of there being an additional $600 in Federal aid. She has no job prospects in sight. The $1,200 stimulus check that came from the CARES Act months ago and that one unemployment insurance check so far has been critical to keeping food on the table and the lights on and a roof over their head for her son. She is just one of millions of Americans right now--right now, wondering what it is going to take to get this body to put down the tools of partisanship and work together. Some folks say: Well, why don't you just go back to work? There is a study out from the Department of Labor that says for every four unemployed Americans there is only one job that is even posted. And there are others who cannot work because of their family circumstances. A husband and wife from Millsboro who are senior citizens reached out to me. The wife wants to go back to work. She has an opportunity to go back to work, but her husband has a serious, chronic condition, a lung disease, and she is terrified of going back to work, catching COVID, and infecting her husband in a way that would lead to his death. They have also relied on this additional unemployment, the $600 a week, which, if it runs out, they will have to make very hard choices. She wants to work, but she wants to protect her husband. A friend of mine, Jeff, runs a small candy store on Rehoboth Beach. This time of year it would normally be just humming with clients and customers, folks stopping in for Snyder's Candy, a great small business. Business is down 50 percent. He applied for and he got one of those PPP loans in the CARES Act, but he received just $9,000--far too little to keep everyone on his payroll, to stay fully open, and he is waiting, waiting to see if we will work together to come up with a compromise, with a next step, with a next round of loans. Another person, a woman Shari, who runs a daycare in Wilmington, small daycare in her own home. She had six families whose children she cared for. Even if she is able to reopen fully and safely, she has heard from those six families. Only two of them are coming back. So she is going to have to close her business, which means she loses her wages, and the families lose childcare. She has seen firsthand that parents can't go back to work if they don't have childcare. There is funding for childcare in the House bill--so far none in the Senate bill. And Robert, a man from Newark, DE, works in the entertainment industry. One of the areas hardest hit is the small stages, the entertainment venues that are so important to the vibrancy of our communities and our culture. He has been relying on unemployment to pay his bills--that extra $600 a week. Robert's message to me: When the stimulus runs out, where do I turn? Do I have my vehicle repossessed? Do I not pay my mortgage or buy food? I have worked my entire life and I am ready to get back to it as soon as there is clear direction for society to follow. Unemployment is not a choice--it is an unfortunate byproduct of not taking this virus seriously enough in the beginning. The publisher of a storied local newspaper in Sussex County shared with me a story that once their PPP funds were exhausted, they had to lay off 20 percent of their full-time staff, half of their contract employees, and he said: The uncertainty in regard to the economic condition over the next few months certainly weighs heavy on the Cape Gazette and our industry as a whole. The loss of local news would be devastating to communities, big and small, across the country. I can see that I have colleagues eager to join me in these remarks on the floor, so let me bring this to a close. One of the moments this became most real for me was when the Delaware Food Bank partnered with the Delaware National Guard to provide supplemental food for Delawareans. I was out at the Christiana Mall, just off I-95--huge parking lot. The mall, of course, closed. This was early on in the pandemic. We thought we would see dozens, maybe 100 households lined up in their cars to get some extra food, much of it from Federal sources. The line went all the way around the mall. Hundreds and hundreds of Delawareans--people who later commented either on radio or letters to the editor that they never thought they would be in a food line. Not since the Great Depression have the food banks of this Nation seen lines as long and made up of as diverse a background and groups asking for, eager for, willing to accept, hoping for support for them and their families. This year alone, 50,000 Delawareans have turned to our food banks so that they can put food on the table for their families. I don't know what my colleagues are reading, what emails they are getting, what calls they are answering, what texts or posts on social media are moving them, but I know that the Delawareans that have reached out to me have shared with me the pain of 150,000 Americans who died, have shared with me the anxiety and concern about how schools and businesses will reopen, and have asked: When will we do our job? Work across the aisle, find responsible compromise, and support our Nation in this moment of crisis. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. COONS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5254 | null | 1,166 |
formal | single mother | null | racist | Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues this afternoon in asking: Is this just another Thursday--is this just another afternoon in a week, in an average year, or in an average August--when it is fine for all of us to simply head to our other commitments and concerns? Sometimes here in Washington it is awfully easy to feel and be disconnected--disconnected from the daily concerns and grinding anxiety of the pressing issues that make the lives of the folks we represent so different. I want to start by reminding us of something a Senator--a Senator from Minnesota--once said in the 1970s. It was Hubert Humphrey who said: The moral character of a society can best be gauged by how they treat those at the dawn of life, its children; those in the shadows of life, the disabled, the disadvantaged; and those in the twilight of life, senior citizens. Well, if that were the measure of this place in this day and this time, then we are failing. I think every person here, every person listening or watching knows that we are in the midst of three crises at the same time: a global pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic, in which a highly transmissive disease has spread rapidly across the world. Many other nations have gotten ahead of it, have managed it, have stabilized it, but here in the United States, we have failed to get our arms around it, to stop it, and to deliver the coordinated resources and supplies needed to give some confidence, some positive direction in our public health infrastructure; in our schools, in our senior skilled nursing centers; in our communities. It has gotten away from us. More than 150,000 Americans have died so far, and States that thought they had it well under control are seeing it reemerge, and States that early on saw no impact are seeing record deaths and infections. And coming right on the heels of it, a recession--a recession deep and sharp. In the last quarter, a nearly 40-percent drop in our GDP; the sharpest since we began recording that. And then third, a renewed focus on inequality in our country. We have seen, because of this pandemic and recession and because of the brutal killing of George Floyd, a reminder of the ways in which we are unequal in our access to healthcare, our access to opportunity, our access to housing. So that is the environment we are in. Several months ago, we all came to this floor and unanimously voted--unanimously, in this bitter and divided partisan time, we unanimously voted to deliver $2.3 trillion in assistance and support that sent checks to individual Americans and families, that sent checks to those who were newly unemployed, that sent support for smallbusinesses at risk of going under, that sent support to State and local governments, that sent support to hospitals. It was the single largest spending bill since the Second World War--some reminder of just the seriousness, the gravity, and the scale of this challenge. And 2 months later, the House of Representatives took up and passed the Heroes Act--another $3 trillion to provide support across many of those same areas. And for weeks, this body, the majority, failed to act, to propose an alternative, to take it up and examine it, to send something back, to put something on the table. It was just this Monday, the 27th of July, that we got to see the answer, and that answer fails to meet this moment. I am from a small State, the State of Delaware--a State below a million people. Our Department of Labor, since March, has received over 130,000 claims for unemployment in a State of less than 1 million. More than 1 in 10 Delawareans have filed for unemployment assistance. We have had huge challenges delivering all over our country the assistance we voted on months ago. Out of that 130,000, 27,000 of them are still waiting to get their unemployment checks. My office and other offices in our delegation are helping hundreds of individuals and families who have called, who have emailed, who have texted, and who have reached out for help. And yet, this body, through inaction, allowed the additional $600 a week in unemployment insurance that has sustained so many families to expire because we can't work out a simple agreement on how severe this moment is, on how deep the need is, and on what the right path forward is. When I talk to my Governor, my mayor, my county executive in my home State, in my city, my county, one of their biggest needs is for additional support for State and local governments. There is robust support in the Heroes Act sent over by the House--$875 billion. That is a lot of money. There is nothing in the HEALS Act presented this Monday. And why? So far, 1.5 million public employees, public servants--State, county, local employees--have been laid off. And some folks I hear on television talking about this speak as if they are faceless bureaucrats in gray buildings. But they are teachers; they are paramedics; they are nurses in county hospitals; they are the folks who administer these unemployment claims. They are the folks who help support small businesses. They are the folks who help make sure our water is drinkable, that our parks are mowed, that our libraries are functional, and that our schools can open safely This moment is the tale of two worlds--a world in the House of Representatives that says we are in a crisis and an emergency, and when the American people see a challenge this big, this deep, they often look to our Federal Government for the resources that will make it possible for their States and their counties and their communities, for their hospital, for their school to get through. And here there has been a resounding silence for weeks. I hear week in and week out from parents, from teachers, from paraprofessionals, anxious: How are our schools going to reopen? What is the plan? Where are the resources? What are the details? How do we get testing? How do we get personal equipment--personal protective equipment? Even now there are conversations urgently going on in my home State about how and when and where we will be able to reopen. When it comes to childcare, millions of Americans are unable to return to work because there isn't support for childcare. And when it comes to small businesses, thousands have closed their doors; thousands more are at risk. We will not get through this unless we can pull together and deliver a sustained and meaningful response. So to my colleagues and friends, I don't know where the rest of our colleagues are. I don't know what they are hearing, but I know what I am hearing from my constituents in Delaware. The way they make sure that we don't get disconnected from our home when we are here in Washington, boy, they text; they email; they call; they post on social media. Some even still write good old-fashioned letters. And the thousands of letters and emails and comments that I got in the first few weeks of this pandemic and recession motivated me--motivated this entire body--to vote unanimously on the CARES Act, one of the biggest moments of Federal assistance in our Nation's history. So what is going on now? Why the lack of focus? Why the sense this is just another Thursday afternoon? Well, let me read to you for a few minutes from a few of the folks who have reached out to me from my home State. Christine in Wilmington lost her job, now, months ago. She is a single mother. She is raising a 12-year-old son. She got just one unemployment insurance check. She has been barely hanging on, and ultimately had to sell her car to buy groceries. She sent me a message, painful in its focus on the urgency of there being an additional $600 in Federal aid. She has no job prospects in sight. The $1,200 stimulus check that came from the CARES Act months ago and that one unemployment insurance check so far has been critical to keeping food on the table and the lights on and a roof over their head for her son. She is just one of millions of Americans right now--right now, wondering what it is going to take to get this body to put down the tools of partisanship and work together. Some folks say: Well, why don't you just go back to work? There is a study out from the Department of Labor that says for every four unemployed Americans there is only one job that is even posted. And there are others who cannot work because of their family circumstances. A husband and wife from Millsboro who are senior citizens reached out to me. The wife wants to go back to work. She has an opportunity to go back to work, but her husband has a serious, chronic condition, a lung disease, and she is terrified of going back to work, catching COVID, and infecting her husband in a way that would lead to his death. They have also relied on this additional unemployment, the $600 a week, which, if it runs out, they will have to make very hard choices. She wants to work, but she wants to protect her husband. A friend of mine, Jeff, runs a small candy store on Rehoboth Beach. This time of year it would normally be just humming with clients and customers, folks stopping in for Snyder's Candy, a great small business. Business is down 50 percent. He applied for and he got one of those PPP loans in the CARES Act, but he received just $9,000--far too little to keep everyone on his payroll, to stay fully open, and he is waiting, waiting to see if we will work together to come up with a compromise, with a next step, with a next round of loans. Another person, a woman Shari, who runs a daycare in Wilmington, small daycare in her own home. She had six families whose children she cared for. Even if she is able to reopen fully and safely, she has heard from those six families. Only two of them are coming back. So she is going to have to close her business, which means she loses her wages, and the families lose childcare. She has seen firsthand that parents can't go back to work if they don't have childcare. There is funding for childcare in the House bill--so far none in the Senate bill. And Robert, a man from Newark, DE, works in the entertainment industry. One of the areas hardest hit is the small stages, the entertainment venues that are so important to the vibrancy of our communities and our culture. He has been relying on unemployment to pay his bills--that extra $600 a week. Robert's message to me: When the stimulus runs out, where do I turn? Do I have my vehicle repossessed? Do I not pay my mortgage or buy food? I have worked my entire life and I am ready to get back to it as soon as there is clear direction for society to follow. Unemployment is not a choice--it is an unfortunate byproduct of not taking this virus seriously enough in the beginning. The publisher of a storied local newspaper in Sussex County shared with me a story that once their PPP funds were exhausted, they had to lay off 20 percent of their full-time staff, half of their contract employees, and he said: The uncertainty in regard to the economic condition over the next few months certainly weighs heavy on the Cape Gazette and our industry as a whole. The loss of local news would be devastating to communities, big and small, across the country. I can see that I have colleagues eager to join me in these remarks on the floor, so let me bring this to a close. One of the moments this became most real for me was when the Delaware Food Bank partnered with the Delaware National Guard to provide supplemental food for Delawareans. I was out at the Christiana Mall, just off I-95--huge parking lot. The mall, of course, closed. This was early on in the pandemic. We thought we would see dozens, maybe 100 households lined up in their cars to get some extra food, much of it from Federal sources. The line went all the way around the mall. Hundreds and hundreds of Delawareans--people who later commented either on radio or letters to the editor that they never thought they would be in a food line. Not since the Great Depression have the food banks of this Nation seen lines as long and made up of as diverse a background and groups asking for, eager for, willing to accept, hoping for support for them and their families. This year alone, 50,000 Delawareans have turned to our food banks so that they can put food on the table for their families. I don't know what my colleagues are reading, what emails they are getting, what calls they are answering, what texts or posts on social media are moving them, but I know that the Delawareans that have reached out to me have shared with me the pain of 150,000 Americans who died, have shared with me the anxiety and concern about how schools and businesses will reopen, and have asked: When will we do our job? Work across the aisle, find responsible compromise, and support our Nation in this moment of crisis. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. COONS | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5254 | null | 1,167 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow said some time ago that this is not just another Thursday. She and my eloquent colleagues, Senator Coons and Senator Hassan, who has just left the floor, have shown how painfully true Senator Stabenow's statement is about letting this not be just another Thursday here in the Senate. With Republican colleagues headed home for the weekend, perhaps for weeks, I want to take stock for a moment of all of the very crises the country faces while American families and communities don't have the luxury of a weekend. There is the COVID crisis, which Senator Stabenow and Senator Coons just talked about, with more than 50,000 newly confirmed cases and 1,000 or more deaths a day with a total of 4\1/2\ million cases in our country to date. There is the joblessness crisis. Enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. Tens of millions of Americans are out of work, with millions walking on economic tightropes. My colleagues are reading the letters. This is not based on some kinds of media reports. They are reading directly from what their constituents are saying, and I want to make sure everybody knows this, having listened now for days to our colleagues saying that the big problem is that somehow the American worker doesn't actually want to work. Senator Stabenow and I have heard that repeatedly in the Finance Committee room. I think it is insulting to the American worker. We had a nationwide townhall sponsored by the Town Hall Project on unemployment issues recently, and people would say things such as this: If I heard about a job on Monday night, I would be there at the crack of dawn on Tuesday morning to get that position. So, as we take stock of these crises, the COVID crisis, the joblessness crisis, I think what we ought to do is add the crisis of legislative malpractice that we are seeing with this Senate Republican walkout today, heading home instead of working, as Senator Coons has said, in a bipartisan way to get the coronavirus rescue bill. I have not seen anything like this in my time in public service: The biggest public health disaster in over a century, the worst level of unemployment since the Depression, an economy that barely holds on, and tomorrow's jobs report will almost certainly show that any hope for a V-shaped recovery that Donald Trump talked about is long gone. Republicans delayed and sat on their hands for months. I think the Presiding Officer heard me walk everybody through the calendar, how weeks passed, months passed. We made offer after offer for negotiation. Senator Schumer and I developed a proposal that to a great extent was based on some of the thinking of Senator Thune. I always think of my friend from Delaware, who is the champion of bipartisanship. That proposal was based on Senator Coon's--excuse me, Senator Thune's thought that, you know, if unemployment is high, people need a benefit so they can make the rent and pay for groceries. Then Senator Thune said: But, you know, when unemployment goes down, the benefits should reflect that as well. He said that. So Senator Schumer and I wrote the unemployment insurance bill to reflect that. The unemployment benefits would be tied to economic conditions on the ground. Yet what we have seen is that somehow Senate Republicans can now leave in good conscience for the weekend, possibly the August recess, when the Senate hasn't passed a bill to help all of those Americans who are sick and jobless. Our job is to legislate on the big issues, not to run home and campaign. Our job is to sit down, negotiate, and find solutions. Mitch McConnell, on the basis of this morning's newspaper, doesn't seem to even show up at the negotiating table. Now, as I mentioned, we have been warning for days and weeks and months that enhanced unemployment benefits were going to expire at the end of July. Republicans sat on their hands. Earlier, we heard Senate Republicans talk about how they had a 1-week proposal which, of course, wouldn't--based on the unemployment experts--get any real help to people who need that money for rent and groceries anytime soon. The Senate Republicans said: You know, workers are going over the cliff. Well, the fact that Republicans have sat this debate out is what pushed those workers over the cliff--pushed them over the cliff--as we warned week after week after week that the economy was cratering and permanent layoffs are increasing. Senator Merkley has joined us. We hear all the time at home and in the Pacific Northwest about people who got laid off once, things seemed to be getting better, they got brought back, and they were laid off again. So it seems--when Senator Stabenow points out that this is not just another Thursday in the Senate--that the economy is headed in the wrong direction. I am just going to spend a couple of minutes, as we talk about this issue of how things are definitely not right here on this Thursday in the Senate, on the question of what would it take for Senate Republicans to get serious about working with us on a coronavirus bill now? How bad would it have to get? One-quarter of a million Americans' lives lost? Half a million? How many jobless? 40 million? 50 million? Does the economy need to contract even more than it did in the second quarter before Senate Republicans say they are going to work with Democrats to help the economy and help the Congress? Back in March, there was a basic deal between the American people and the government to try to make sure that there was an effort to try to provide help for people as the pandemic took hold in this country. Senator Stabenow and I were sort of the point people as it related to the big issues in the Finance Committee. Senator Stabenow, doing her usually terrific job on the big health issues, and I spent days and days hearing essentially from the Labor Secretary, Secretary Scalia, about how he really wasn't going to push hard for much of anything except business as usual. But after that difficult period that went on for days and days in the Finance Committee, we actually got the $600 extra per week, each week, and modernized the unemployment program. As Senator Stabenow knows, back when the program began in the 1930s, nobody knew about a gig worker or the self-employed, or the independent contractor, or freelancers, and the like. There was a sense that we would be working on unemployment for a long time, particularly the way it was administered, because the States have these kinds of bronze-age technologies. One of the frustrating parts of this period is that even though millions and millions of Americans have gotten those extra benefits, that is really cold comfort to the many people who haven't been able to get through the system and who haven't been able, call after call after call, to get their claim resolved. Yet there was the beginning, based on that vote, of a strategy to help people get through the economic hardship. Right now, the Trump administration and Republicans in the Congress are breaking that deal. The virus is out of control, spiking in so many States. The key economic lifeline for jobless Americans is getting yanked away. It is just unconscionable. And, now, just in the last few hours, there is talk that Donald Trump is looking at possibly tomorrow, Senator Stabenow, tearing up the Constitution and ordering a cut in the Social Security and Medicare tax on his own. This will not give a dime to the millions of families who have lost jobs during the pandemic but will put thousands of dollars in the pockets of every lawyer and wheeler-dealer who can pay themselves a salary while sitting at home. What really concerns us--and I have been involved in these issues since my Gray Panthers days--is one thing that Donald Trump is talking about, Senator Stabenow, and that is draining the Social Security trust fund and bringing closer the day when Social Security benefits will be cut. So for all of those people who are, say, in their late fifties, and they have worked so hard and done difficult labor year after year after year just hoping--hoping--to be able to get Social Security, now Donald Trump is talking about draining the Social Security trust fund, cutting the Social Security and Medicare tax on his own. It sure seems like he has a monopoly on bad ideas. He is also talking about some kind of Executive order on enhanced unemployment benefits, which he actually doesn't have the authority to issue--one more Donald Trump ``con'' oil, an additional bit of snake oil. With respect to the unemployment issue and his idea of an Executive order, what he would do there is throw State workforce agencies into chaos. As we talked about, so many States have faced real challenges in getting benefits out to all the deserving Americans. We have been trying, on the Finance Committee. Senator Stabenow has been a big champion of improving technology. We got $1 billion for the State agencies. We are trying to get more. Donald Trump's proposal would just end up hurting the jobless Americans counting on benefits even more. If Donald Trump were serious about extending enhanced unemployment coverage, he would be working with Democrats on extending the benefits instead of fighting them. I am going to close with this, and it is a response to something I have heard from many of my Republican colleagues who seem to have recovered their sense of fiscal conservatism that disappeared when Donald Trump was inaugurated. I heard some of them say that passing another COVID bill would amount to sacrificing our children's futures. Here is what is worse for American children: growing up at a time when their parents can't find good-paying jobs because of double-digit unemployment, getting evicted from their homesin the middle of a pandemic and becoming homeless, having to skip meals because their family can't afford enough food each month, going to school in a district that laid off teachers and staff due to the coronavirus recession, which means packing too many kids into classrooms, which can be dangerous. Let's forget about all of that same old Republican deficit talk. It is the same old routine from a decade ago and a decade before that and a decade before that. The Republican deficit talk was nowhere to be found when they passed--over the opposition of Democrats on the Finance Committee--a $2 trillion tax handout overwhelmingly benefiting multinational corporations and the wealthy. Americans struggle with the pandemic and the joblessness crisis right now. The Senate needs to deal with it right now. As Senator Stabenow said--she eloquently launched this important discussion, and I know my friend from Oregon is here to be part of it--it is certainly not another Thursday in the Senate, not another garden-variety, end of the week when you have enhanced unemployment benefits expiring, and 160,000 Americans dying. It is unthinkable--unthinkable--that anybody could be going home when there are so many challenges right in front of us. I hope the majority leader, Senator McConnell, and my Republican colleagues understand the power of what Senator Stabenow has basically outlined, because there are times on a Thursday afternoon in the Senate where I think you could say you wouldn't have the kinds of challenges we are talking about. This is not one of them. This is one where, on issue after issue, there are crises: the COVID crisis, the joblessness crisis, and now we have a legislative malpractice crisis by Senator McConnell leading his Senators. I urge him to come back, work with us, bring about the negotiations we need, as I said again and again, on unemployment. I am not going anywhere--not anywhere. This is one of the most important causes I have ever had the opportunity to be a part of. Even with all of the challenges with unemployment, I can only imagine, Senator Stabenow, how much more hurt there would be in America without those millions of people getting the money for groceries and rent and paying medical bills and car insurance and keeping the lights on. We need the majority leader and Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate to work with us. There is no time to waste. They ought to be recognizing the power of what Senators have said here today. That negotiating needs to take place now rather than having yet another break for Senators to pursue other kinds of matters I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5256-2 | null | 1,168 |
formal | handout | null | racist | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow said some time ago that this is not just another Thursday. She and my eloquent colleagues, Senator Coons and Senator Hassan, who has just left the floor, have shown how painfully true Senator Stabenow's statement is about letting this not be just another Thursday here in the Senate. With Republican colleagues headed home for the weekend, perhaps for weeks, I want to take stock for a moment of all of the very crises the country faces while American families and communities don't have the luxury of a weekend. There is the COVID crisis, which Senator Stabenow and Senator Coons just talked about, with more than 50,000 newly confirmed cases and 1,000 or more deaths a day with a total of 4\1/2\ million cases in our country to date. There is the joblessness crisis. Enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. Tens of millions of Americans are out of work, with millions walking on economic tightropes. My colleagues are reading the letters. This is not based on some kinds of media reports. They are reading directly from what their constituents are saying, and I want to make sure everybody knows this, having listened now for days to our colleagues saying that the big problem is that somehow the American worker doesn't actually want to work. Senator Stabenow and I have heard that repeatedly in the Finance Committee room. I think it is insulting to the American worker. We had a nationwide townhall sponsored by the Town Hall Project on unemployment issues recently, and people would say things such as this: If I heard about a job on Monday night, I would be there at the crack of dawn on Tuesday morning to get that position. So, as we take stock of these crises, the COVID crisis, the joblessness crisis, I think what we ought to do is add the crisis of legislative malpractice that we are seeing with this Senate Republican walkout today, heading home instead of working, as Senator Coons has said, in a bipartisan way to get the coronavirus rescue bill. I have not seen anything like this in my time in public service: The biggest public health disaster in over a century, the worst level of unemployment since the Depression, an economy that barely holds on, and tomorrow's jobs report will almost certainly show that any hope for a V-shaped recovery that Donald Trump talked about is long gone. Republicans delayed and sat on their hands for months. I think the Presiding Officer heard me walk everybody through the calendar, how weeks passed, months passed. We made offer after offer for negotiation. Senator Schumer and I developed a proposal that to a great extent was based on some of the thinking of Senator Thune. I always think of my friend from Delaware, who is the champion of bipartisanship. That proposal was based on Senator Coon's--excuse me, Senator Thune's thought that, you know, if unemployment is high, people need a benefit so they can make the rent and pay for groceries. Then Senator Thune said: But, you know, when unemployment goes down, the benefits should reflect that as well. He said that. So Senator Schumer and I wrote the unemployment insurance bill to reflect that. The unemployment benefits would be tied to economic conditions on the ground. Yet what we have seen is that somehow Senate Republicans can now leave in good conscience for the weekend, possibly the August recess, when the Senate hasn't passed a bill to help all of those Americans who are sick and jobless. Our job is to legislate on the big issues, not to run home and campaign. Our job is to sit down, negotiate, and find solutions. Mitch McConnell, on the basis of this morning's newspaper, doesn't seem to even show up at the negotiating table. Now, as I mentioned, we have been warning for days and weeks and months that enhanced unemployment benefits were going to expire at the end of July. Republicans sat on their hands. Earlier, we heard Senate Republicans talk about how they had a 1-week proposal which, of course, wouldn't--based on the unemployment experts--get any real help to people who need that money for rent and groceries anytime soon. The Senate Republicans said: You know, workers are going over the cliff. Well, the fact that Republicans have sat this debate out is what pushed those workers over the cliff--pushed them over the cliff--as we warned week after week after week that the economy was cratering and permanent layoffs are increasing. Senator Merkley has joined us. We hear all the time at home and in the Pacific Northwest about people who got laid off once, things seemed to be getting better, they got brought back, and they were laid off again. So it seems--when Senator Stabenow points out that this is not just another Thursday in the Senate--that the economy is headed in the wrong direction. I am just going to spend a couple of minutes, as we talk about this issue of how things are definitely not right here on this Thursday in the Senate, on the question of what would it take for Senate Republicans to get serious about working with us on a coronavirus bill now? How bad would it have to get? One-quarter of a million Americans' lives lost? Half a million? How many jobless? 40 million? 50 million? Does the economy need to contract even more than it did in the second quarter before Senate Republicans say they are going to work with Democrats to help the economy and help the Congress? Back in March, there was a basic deal between the American people and the government to try to make sure that there was an effort to try to provide help for people as the pandemic took hold in this country. Senator Stabenow and I were sort of the point people as it related to the big issues in the Finance Committee. Senator Stabenow, doing her usually terrific job on the big health issues, and I spent days and days hearing essentially from the Labor Secretary, Secretary Scalia, about how he really wasn't going to push hard for much of anything except business as usual. But after that difficult period that went on for days and days in the Finance Committee, we actually got the $600 extra per week, each week, and modernized the unemployment program. As Senator Stabenow knows, back when the program began in the 1930s, nobody knew about a gig worker or the self-employed, or the independent contractor, or freelancers, and the like. There was a sense that we would be working on unemployment for a long time, particularly the way it was administered, because the States have these kinds of bronze-age technologies. One of the frustrating parts of this period is that even though millions and millions of Americans have gotten those extra benefits, that is really cold comfort to the many people who haven't been able to get through the system and who haven't been able, call after call after call, to get their claim resolved. Yet there was the beginning, based on that vote, of a strategy to help people get through the economic hardship. Right now, the Trump administration and Republicans in the Congress are breaking that deal. The virus is out of control, spiking in so many States. The key economic lifeline for jobless Americans is getting yanked away. It is just unconscionable. And, now, just in the last few hours, there is talk that Donald Trump is looking at possibly tomorrow, Senator Stabenow, tearing up the Constitution and ordering a cut in the Social Security and Medicare tax on his own. This will not give a dime to the millions of families who have lost jobs during the pandemic but will put thousands of dollars in the pockets of every lawyer and wheeler-dealer who can pay themselves a salary while sitting at home. What really concerns us--and I have been involved in these issues since my Gray Panthers days--is one thing that Donald Trump is talking about, Senator Stabenow, and that is draining the Social Security trust fund and bringing closer the day when Social Security benefits will be cut. So for all of those people who are, say, in their late fifties, and they have worked so hard and done difficult labor year after year after year just hoping--hoping--to be able to get Social Security, now Donald Trump is talking about draining the Social Security trust fund, cutting the Social Security and Medicare tax on his own. It sure seems like he has a monopoly on bad ideas. He is also talking about some kind of Executive order on enhanced unemployment benefits, which he actually doesn't have the authority to issue--one more Donald Trump ``con'' oil, an additional bit of snake oil. With respect to the unemployment issue and his idea of an Executive order, what he would do there is throw State workforce agencies into chaos. As we talked about, so many States have faced real challenges in getting benefits out to all the deserving Americans. We have been trying, on the Finance Committee. Senator Stabenow has been a big champion of improving technology. We got $1 billion for the State agencies. We are trying to get more. Donald Trump's proposal would just end up hurting the jobless Americans counting on benefits even more. If Donald Trump were serious about extending enhanced unemployment coverage, he would be working with Democrats on extending the benefits instead of fighting them. I am going to close with this, and it is a response to something I have heard from many of my Republican colleagues who seem to have recovered their sense of fiscal conservatism that disappeared when Donald Trump was inaugurated. I heard some of them say that passing another COVID bill would amount to sacrificing our children's futures. Here is what is worse for American children: growing up at a time when their parents can't find good-paying jobs because of double-digit unemployment, getting evicted from their homesin the middle of a pandemic and becoming homeless, having to skip meals because their family can't afford enough food each month, going to school in a district that laid off teachers and staff due to the coronavirus recession, which means packing too many kids into classrooms, which can be dangerous. Let's forget about all of that same old Republican deficit talk. It is the same old routine from a decade ago and a decade before that and a decade before that. The Republican deficit talk was nowhere to be found when they passed--over the opposition of Democrats on the Finance Committee--a $2 trillion tax handout overwhelmingly benefiting multinational corporations and the wealthy. Americans struggle with the pandemic and the joblessness crisis right now. The Senate needs to deal with it right now. As Senator Stabenow said--she eloquently launched this important discussion, and I know my friend from Oregon is here to be part of it--it is certainly not another Thursday in the Senate, not another garden-variety, end of the week when you have enhanced unemployment benefits expiring, and 160,000 Americans dying. It is unthinkable--unthinkable--that anybody could be going home when there are so many challenges right in front of us. I hope the majority leader, Senator McConnell, and my Republican colleagues understand the power of what Senator Stabenow has basically outlined, because there are times on a Thursday afternoon in the Senate where I think you could say you wouldn't have the kinds of challenges we are talking about. This is not one of them. This is one where, on issue after issue, there are crises: the COVID crisis, the joblessness crisis, and now we have a legislative malpractice crisis by Senator McConnell leading his Senators. I urge him to come back, work with us, bring about the negotiations we need, as I said again and again, on unemployment. I am not going anywhere--not anywhere. This is one of the most important causes I have ever had the opportunity to be a part of. Even with all of the challenges with unemployment, I can only imagine, Senator Stabenow, how much more hurt there would be in America without those millions of people getting the money for groceries and rent and paying medical bills and car insurance and keeping the lights on. We need the majority leader and Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate to work with us. There is no time to waste. They ought to be recognizing the power of what Senators have said here today. That negotiating needs to take place now rather than having yet another break for Senators to pursue other kinds of matters I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5256-2 | null | 1,169 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been clear that we would need a sustained response to mitigate the damaging health and economic impact facing the American people. When Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the CARES Act in March, I, along with my Democratic colleagues, made clear that we would need to stand ready to provide additional, robust support as the situation demanded. This afternoon we have been hearing from our colleagues. I thank Senator Stabenow for gathering us here. I thank Senator Coons for the way he just illustrated in such personal, direct terms the way this pandemic and all of its ripple effects are impacting his constituents, as they are impacting my constituents and constituents of every single Member of the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and Washington Republicans have not met the challenges facing the American people today with any sense of urgency, and the cost of that inaction has been seen all across the country. But, today, Senate majority Leader McConnell decided to act as if this were just any other Thursday--just any other Thursday for the Republicans in the Senate. Well, it is not just any other Thursday for our constituents. Back in May, House Democrats passed a substantial relief bill called the Heroes Act, but for months, Republicans refused to even acknowledge the necessity of providing more relief. In the 3 months since the House acted, the pain that our citizens are experiencing has only grown. Cases have skyrocketed. The United States of America is approaching 160,000 Americans killed by this virus. Small businesses have shuttered, and millions of people have lost their jobs. Meanwhile, President Trump continues to downplay the significant toll that this virus has taken. Earlier this week he said this of the COVID-19 death toll: ``It is what it is.'' Just yesterday, he again claimed that the virus would simply go away. Not recognizing the gravity of this threat has significantly harmed Americans and America. While Congress can't undo the damage that has been done, I am urging my colleagues to come together on a response that will lead us forward. Throughout this week, I have joined with my colleagues to come to the floor and to lay out some of the priorities that we are focused on and to share what we are hearing from people all across our States. The cost of inaction grows every single day. Millions of Americans lost enhanced unemployment benefits and with it the ability to feed their families and pay their rent. People will lose their homes now to evictions. By the way, their landlords will feel the ripple effect when they can't pay their rent. Their grocers will feel the ripple effect when they can't buy groceries. The economic pain will spread and spread and spread. Lack of supplies and testing capacity--a national disgrace months into this pandemic--is hindering the ability to slow the spread of the virus and, of course, hindering the ability of people to get back to work and school safely. Schools are struggling to open without the adequate guidance that the Federal Government could provide and without resources that they need to keep teachers, staff, students, and families safe. States and local communities are accelerating cuts and, with it, adding to job losses and lost economic activity. Americans are hurting. They are hurting in red States, and they are hurting in blue States. They are crying out for help. One of the great privileges of this job is that people come forward with their ideas, with their hopes, with their fears. They share incredibly personal details about the challenges that they face and then are also so willing to share with us their successes too. We get to witness our constituents and work with them in difficult times and in good times, and they are willing to share that with us. They demonstrate to us day in and day out what it means to be a member of a community, what it means to come together and solve a problem. They do it in their businesses. They do it on school boards. They do it without regard to political party or walk of life. The least we could do in the U.S. Senate on this Thursday, over this weekend, over the next week, is follow their example, represent them at their best, display that American ingenuity, innovation, pragmatism, compromise, can-do spirit. In the process we could save lives; we could begin to rebuild our economy; and we could demonstrate to the rest of the world that we know how to come together and work for what is best for all of us. We must help our constituents. We must act. Our country cannot wait any longer I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HASSAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5256 | null | 1,170 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been clear that we would need a sustained response to mitigate the damaging health and economic impact facing the American people. When Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the CARES Act in March, I, along with my Democratic colleagues, made clear that we would need to stand ready to provide additional, robust support as the situation demanded. This afternoon we have been hearing from our colleagues. I thank Senator Stabenow for gathering us here. I thank Senator Coons for the way he just illustrated in such personal, direct terms the way this pandemic and all of its ripple effects are impacting his constituents, as they are impacting my constituents and constituents of every single Member of the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and Washington Republicans have not met the challenges facing the American people today with any sense of urgency, and the cost of that inaction has been seen all across the country. But, today, Senate majority Leader McConnell decided to act as if this were just any other Thursday--just any other Thursday for the Republicans in the Senate. Well, it is not just any other Thursday for our constituents. Back in May, House Democrats passed a substantial relief bill called the Heroes Act, but for months, Republicans refused to even acknowledge the necessity of providing more relief. In the 3 months since the House acted, the pain that our citizens are experiencing has only grown. Cases have skyrocketed. The United States of America is approaching 160,000 Americans killed by this virus. Small businesses have shuttered, and millions of people have lost their jobs. Meanwhile, President Trump continues to downplay the significant toll that this virus has taken. Earlier this week he said this of the COVID-19 death toll: ``It is what it is.'' Just yesterday, he again claimed that the virus would simply go away. Not recognizing the gravity of this threat has significantly harmed Americans and America. While Congress can't undo the damage that has been done, I am urging my colleagues to come together on a response that will lead us forward. Throughout this week, I have joined with my colleagues to come to the floor and to lay out some of the priorities that we are focused on and to share what we are hearing from people all across our States. The cost of inaction grows every single day. Millions of Americans lost enhanced unemployment benefits and with it the ability to feed their families and pay their rent. People will lose their homes now to evictions. By the way, their landlords will feel the ripple effect when they can't pay their rent. Their grocers will feel the ripple effect when they can't buy groceries. The economic pain will spread and spread and spread. Lack of supplies and testing capacity--a national disgrace months into this pandemic--is hindering the ability to slow the spread of the virus and, of course, hindering the ability of people to get back to work and school safely. Schools are struggling to open without the adequate guidance that the Federal Government could provide and without resources that they need to keep teachers, staff, students, and families safe. States and local communities are accelerating cuts and, with it, adding to job losses and lost economic activity. Americans are hurting. They are hurting in red States, and they are hurting in blue States. They are crying out for help. One of the great privileges of this job is that people come forward with their ideas, with their hopes, with their fears. They share incredibly personal details about the challenges that they face and then are also so willing to share with us their successes too. We get to witness our constituents and work with them in difficult times and in good times, and they are willing to share that with us. They demonstrate to us day in and day out what it means to be a member of a community, what it means to come together and solve a problem. They do it in their businesses. They do it on school boards. They do it without regard to political party or walk of life. The least we could do in the U.S. Senate on this Thursday, over this weekend, over the next week, is follow their example, represent them at their best, display that American ingenuity, innovation, pragmatism, compromise, can-do spirit. In the process we could save lives; we could begin to rebuild our economy; and we could demonstrate to the rest of the world that we know how to come together and work for what is best for all of us. We must help our constituents. We must act. Our country cannot wait any longer I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HASSAN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5256 | null | 1,171 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, is this just another Thursday? Are things going along well in America, with nothing to worry about, nothing to keep us up at night, nothing to keep mothers and fathers up worried about the health of their children? Is this just another Thursday with America doing well, or are we here in the midst of the worst pandemic in a century since the Spanish flu? You wouldn't know it from this Chamber. You wouldn't know it from the majority leader's shutting this place down. Is it possible that we are in the worst economic implosion since the Great Depression? Is this just another Thursday? You wouldn't know that we are in a terrible economic collapse based on the fact that the majority leader is treating this period of time like just another Thursday, when everything is fine and everything is good in America. It is almost 3 months ago that the House passed a robust bill to address the pandemic and to address the economic implosion--3 months ago. Why didn't the Senate say immediately, we will act, as well, because we are having big issues in America? They didn't act after the first week after the House acted. They just treated it like another week, no concerns. They didn't act in the second week. We are now 11 weeks since the House acted and still the majority leader says: Don't worry, be happy. It is just another Thursday. All is good in America--no concerns, no anxiety, no worry. Just be happy. I can tell you what I am hearing from Oregonians. They are saying it is not just another Thursday. They are saying our State government is estimated to lose $10 billion in revenue over the next two bienniums--a little less than $3 billion this biennium, a little more than $4 billion in the next biennium, and about $3 billion after that. That is $10 billion of lost revenue for core programs, like healthcare, housing, education, and transportation. That is a pretty big deal in terms of the foundations for the programs Oregonians count on. I am hearing from a whole lot of parents--moms and dads--and they are saying: This is not just another Thursday. We are worried about our children's education. I recognize there are a lot of rich people in America paying for tutors for their children, maybe two tutors for a child--maybe a math tutor and a reading tutor, maybe a special education tutor, who knows--because they are rich. You know what, most of America are ordinary Americans who count on the quality of our public schools. I can tell you, a lot of parents are worried about how are they going to be able to have an education for their children given the challenge in the school if the school can't afford to convert the way it operates, either in the school, in a very altered manner, or providing workstations and computers and broadband so every child has the ability to work online. Now, we know that even that is going to be far insufficient because so many children are in households where there isn't going to be the type of full-on, all-day assistance to help them utilize that online access. We know that. Shouldn't we be providing the resources to minimize the gap between the best-off and ordinary families? Shouldn't we be trying to do everything for our children? My dad was a mechanic. A mechanic who works in the sawmill is called a millwright. He said it is the best job in the world. If he could keep the machinery humming, it meant that every worker had a job to come to, and it meant the company made money. Everybody was happy if he could keep the machinery running, and he did. He did a marvelous job. He was pretty disappointed when the company was bought by an investor and the mill was shut down overnight and the timber that the company had was sold to another company, a bigger company. But, in that context of a father with a powerful ability to keep machinery humming that would benefit so many other people, he loved the fact that we had good public schools. He told me: Son, because we live in America and have these public schools, if you go through the door of that schoolhouse and you study hard, you can do almost anything in our country. What a glorious vision for an ordinary, working American to say to their child: Because we live in America, you can do almost anything, in our country. The horizons are boundless because we have good public schools. But it is 11 weeks since the House acted. Have we acted to provide good public schools? All of our teachers and our administrators and our parents and our school boards are saying we are just around the corner from the ordinary start of school. It is either just before or just after Labor Day. Where is the U.S. Senate? Mitch McConnell sent us home. He shut this place down while our children's education, preparation for a very unusual and difficult year, goes untended because there aren't the resources. I can tell you, I am hearing a lot from the medical community. My wife, Mary, is a nurse. She is a home hospice nurse, so she goes and coaches families as their loved one goes through the final chapter of their life here on our planet. A lot of these folks that she visits, because they are in hospice, it, by definition, means they are quite ill. Often, the families around them are elderly, and they are very concerned about any presence of COVID, coronavirus. What she hears is that we need to tackle this pandemic. What do the scientists and healthcare experts say? They say a national investment in personal protective equipment; they say a national investment in a testing strategy to be able to do massive numbers of tests to help identify folks who are carrying the virus and spreading the virus but are asymptomatic, as well as those who actually have symptoms; and a massive national investment in tracing so that we can follow up when somebody is identified as carrying the virus--Who did they get it from? Who did they have contact with?--so those folks can go into quarantine and stop the chain of infection from person to person to person. The House, 11 weeks ago, passed a bill that has massive resources for testing and tracing, and for 11 weeks, the leadership of this body has said: Not needed. Let's do nothing. Let's just treat this as just another Thursday. No concern. Then I hear from folks who are really worried about the nutrition for our children--not just the education but nutrition. We worked hard to get the EBT program to help out because of school sites being shut down, but what about this coming year? Why aren't we helping with nutrition? The House, 11 weeks ago, acted, but here, it is just another Thursday--no crisis, no concern when children across America are going hungry. The bill that the House passed had resources for State and local government to help address the hemorrhaging of funds. I noted that Oregon predicts, just in its State government, a loss of $10 billion over next three biennium--or this biennium and the next two. For them to sustain their basic programs, they need help. I heard today from the president of one of our public universities--our 4-year university, Oregon State University in Corvallis--and they were estimating a massive loss of revenue. They need this bill, which would direct support for our 4-year institutions. They know that the State, if it is going to be able to sustain its support for the universities, so that the money doesn't come in the front door and out the back door, we need to provide help to the State government. I know this isn't a blue-red issue. I know that blue and red Governors are saying the same thing. I know blue and red county commissioners are asking for the same help. So I say to my colleagues, it is morally unacceptable to just say: This is another Thursday. All is well. We have waited 11 weeks to act after the House. What is another week? What does it matter if a family that has been able to pay its rent or its mortgage or its utilities or put food on the table because they got $600 a week extra help in unemployment, what does it matter if they lose their home? What does it matter if they are evicted? Well, I will tell you this: It matters a hell of a lot--a huge impact on that family for a long time to come. I don't know how many of my colleagues have worked in the area of assisting homeless families, but when you are destabilized, when you are tossed out, when you experience homelessness, when you are living in your car with your kids or it is a basement this week and it is a van the next and who knows what shelter will let you in, it destabilizes and knocks you down for a long time. It makes it hard to get ready to go to a job interview. It makes it hard to present yourself effectively in a job interview. It puts all kinds of stresses on the family relationship. Is it really OK that we shut the Senate down when families are going to be evicted because we shut off that $600 per week and the moratorium on evictions expired? This, colleagues, is not just another Thursday. This is a moment of national crisis, a pandemic crisis, an economic crisis, and we need to be in crisis mode. We need to be here day and night. We need to be working on each of these issues that were addressed 11 weeks ago in the House while this body sat on its hands. Sitting on your hands when the people of America need us, that is not acceptable in the U.S. Senate. Let's act boldly. Let's act decisively. Let's recognize that we must rise to meet this national challenge and do so now. I yield to my colleague from Michigan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5258 | null | 1,172 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, is this just another Thursday? Are things going along well in America, with nothing to worry about, nothing to keep us up at night, nothing to keep mothers and fathers up worried about the health of their children? Is this just another Thursday with America doing well, or are we here in the midst of the worst pandemic in a century since the Spanish flu? You wouldn't know it from this Chamber. You wouldn't know it from the majority leader's shutting this place down. Is it possible that we are in the worst economic implosion since the Great Depression? Is this just another Thursday? You wouldn't know that we are in a terrible economic collapse based on the fact that the majority leader is treating this period of time like just another Thursday, when everything is fine and everything is good in America. It is almost 3 months ago that the House passed a robust bill to address the pandemic and to address the economic implosion--3 months ago. Why didn't the Senate say immediately, we will act, as well, because we are having big issues in America? They didn't act after the first week after the House acted. They just treated it like another week, no concerns. They didn't act in the second week. We are now 11 weeks since the House acted and still the majority leader says: Don't worry, be happy. It is just another Thursday. All is good in America--no concerns, no anxiety, no worry. Just be happy. I can tell you what I am hearing from Oregonians. They are saying it is not just another Thursday. They are saying our State government is estimated to lose $10 billion in revenue over the next two bienniums--a little less than $3 billion this biennium, a little more than $4 billion in the next biennium, and about $3 billion after that. That is $10 billion of lost revenue for core programs, like healthcare, housing, education, and transportation. That is a pretty big deal in terms of the foundations for the programs Oregonians count on. I am hearing from a whole lot of parents--moms and dads--and they are saying: This is not just another Thursday. We are worried about our children's education. I recognize there are a lot of rich people in America paying for tutors for their children, maybe two tutors for a child--maybe a math tutor and a reading tutor, maybe a special education tutor, who knows--because they are rich. You know what, most of America are ordinary Americans who count on the quality of our public schools. I can tell you, a lot of parents are worried about how are they going to be able to have an education for their children given the challenge in the school if the school can't afford to convert the way it operates, either in the school, in a very altered manner, or providing workstations and computers and broadband so every child has the ability to work online. Now, we know that even that is going to be far insufficient because so many children are in households where there isn't going to be the type of full-on, all-day assistance to help them utilize that online access. We know that. Shouldn't we be providing the resources to minimize the gap between the best-off and ordinary families? Shouldn't we be trying to do everything for our children? My dad was a mechanic. A mechanic who works in the sawmill is called a millwright. He said it is the best job in the world. If he could keep the machinery humming, it meant that every worker had a job to come to, and it meant the company made money. Everybody was happy if he could keep the machinery running, and he did. He did a marvelous job. He was pretty disappointed when the company was bought by an investor and the mill was shut down overnight and the timber that the company had was sold to another company, a bigger company. But, in that context of a father with a powerful ability to keep machinery humming that would benefit so many other people, he loved the fact that we had good public schools. He told me: Son, because we live in America and have these public schools, if you go through the door of that schoolhouse and you study hard, you can do almost anything in our country. What a glorious vision for an ordinary, working American to say to their child: Because we live in America, you can do almost anything, in our country. The horizons are boundless because we have good public schools. But it is 11 weeks since the House acted. Have we acted to provide good public schools? All of our teachers and our administrators and our parents and our school boards are saying we are just around the corner from the ordinary start of school. It is either just before or just after Labor Day. Where is the U.S. Senate? Mitch McConnell sent us home. He shut this place down while our children's education, preparation for a very unusual and difficult year, goes untended because there aren't the resources. I can tell you, I am hearing a lot from the medical community. My wife, Mary, is a nurse. She is a home hospice nurse, so she goes and coaches families as their loved one goes through the final chapter of their life here on our planet. A lot of these folks that she visits, because they are in hospice, it, by definition, means they are quite ill. Often, the families around them are elderly, and they are very concerned about any presence of COVID, coronavirus. What she hears is that we need to tackle this pandemic. What do the scientists and healthcare experts say? They say a national investment in personal protective equipment; they say a national investment in a testing strategy to be able to do massive numbers of tests to help identify folks who are carrying the virus and spreading the virus but are asymptomatic, as well as those who actually have symptoms; and a massive national investment in tracing so that we can follow up when somebody is identified as carrying the virus--Who did they get it from? Who did they have contact with?--so those folks can go into quarantine and stop the chain of infection from person to person to person. The House, 11 weeks ago, passed a bill that has massive resources for testing and tracing, and for 11 weeks, the leadership of this body has said: Not needed. Let's do nothing. Let's just treat this as just another Thursday. No concern. Then I hear from folks who are really worried about the nutrition for our children--not just the education but nutrition. We worked hard to get the EBT program to help out because of school sites being shut down, but what about this coming year? Why aren't we helping with nutrition? The House, 11 weeks ago, acted, but here, it is just another Thursday--no crisis, no concern when children across America are going hungry. The bill that the House passed had resources for State and local government to help address the hemorrhaging of funds. I noted that Oregon predicts, just in its State government, a loss of $10 billion over next three biennium--or this biennium and the next two. For them to sustain their basic programs, they need help. I heard today from the president of one of our public universities--our 4-year university, Oregon State University in Corvallis--and they were estimating a massive loss of revenue. They need this bill, which would direct support for our 4-year institutions. They know that the State, if it is going to be able to sustain its support for the universities, so that the money doesn't come in the front door and out the back door, we need to provide help to the State government. I know this isn't a blue-red issue. I know that blue and red Governors are saying the same thing. I know blue and red county commissioners are asking for the same help. So I say to my colleagues, it is morally unacceptable to just say: This is another Thursday. All is well. We have waited 11 weeks to act after the House. What is another week? What does it matter if a family that has been able to pay its rent or its mortgage or its utilities or put food on the table because they got $600 a week extra help in unemployment, what does it matter if they lose their home? What does it matter if they are evicted? Well, I will tell you this: It matters a hell of a lot--a huge impact on that family for a long time to come. I don't know how many of my colleagues have worked in the area of assisting homeless families, but when you are destabilized, when you are tossed out, when you experience homelessness, when you are living in your car with your kids or it is a basement this week and it is a van the next and who knows what shelter will let you in, it destabilizes and knocks you down for a long time. It makes it hard to get ready to go to a job interview. It makes it hard to present yourself effectively in a job interview. It puts all kinds of stresses on the family relationship. Is it really OK that we shut the Senate down when families are going to be evicted because we shut off that $600 per week and the moratorium on evictions expired? This, colleagues, is not just another Thursday. This is a moment of national crisis, a pandemic crisis, an economic crisis, and we need to be in crisis mode. We need to be here day and night. We need to be working on each of these issues that were addressed 11 weeks ago in the House while this body sat on its hands. Sitting on your hands when the people of America need us, that is not acceptable in the U.S. Senate. Let's act boldly. Let's act decisively. Let's recognize that we must rise to meet this national challenge and do so now. I yield to my colleague from Michigan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5258 | null | 1,173 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, is this just another Thursday? Are things going along well in America, with nothing to worry about, nothing to keep us up at night, nothing to keep mothers and fathers up worried about the health of their children? Is this just another Thursday with America doing well, or are we here in the midst of the worst pandemic in a century since the Spanish flu? You wouldn't know it from this Chamber. You wouldn't know it from the majority leader's shutting this place down. Is it possible that we are in the worst economic implosion since the Great Depression? Is this just another Thursday? You wouldn't know that we are in a terrible economic collapse based on the fact that the majority leader is treating this period of time like just another Thursday, when everything is fine and everything is good in America. It is almost 3 months ago that the House passed a robust bill to address the pandemic and to address the economic implosion--3 months ago. Why didn't the Senate say immediately, we will act, as well, because we are having big issues in America? They didn't act after the first week after the House acted. They just treated it like another week, no concerns. They didn't act in the second week. We are now 11 weeks since the House acted and still the majority leader says: Don't worry, be happy. It is just another Thursday. All is good in America--no concerns, no anxiety, no worry. Just be happy. I can tell you what I am hearing from Oregonians. They are saying it is not just another Thursday. They are saying our State government is estimated to lose $10 billion in revenue over the next two bienniums--a little less than $3 billion this biennium, a little more than $4 billion in the next biennium, and about $3 billion after that. That is $10 billion of lost revenue for core programs, like healthcare, housing, education, and transportation. That is a pretty big deal in terms of the foundations for the programs Oregonians count on. I am hearing from a whole lot of parents--moms and dads--and they are saying: This is not just another Thursday. We are worried about our children's education. I recognize there are a lot of rich people in America paying for tutors for their children, maybe two tutors for a child--maybe a math tutor and a reading tutor, maybe a special education tutor, who knows--because they are rich. You know what, most of America are ordinary Americans who count on the quality of our public schools. I can tell you, a lot of parents are worried about how are they going to be able to have an education for their children given the challenge in the school if the school can't afford to convert the way it operates, either in the school, in a very altered manner, or providing workstations and computers and broadband so every child has the ability to work online. Now, we know that even that is going to be far insufficient because so many children are in households where there isn't going to be the type of full-on, all-day assistance to help them utilize that online access. We know that. Shouldn't we be providing the resources to minimize the gap between the best-off and ordinary families? Shouldn't we be trying to do everything for our children? My dad was a mechanic. A mechanic who works in the sawmill is called a millwright. He said it is the best job in the world. If he could keep the machinery humming, it meant that every worker had a job to come to, and it meant the company made money. Everybody was happy if he could keep the machinery running, and he did. He did a marvelous job. He was pretty disappointed when the company was bought by an investor and the mill was shut down overnight and the timber that the company had was sold to another company, a bigger company. But, in that context of a father with a powerful ability to keep machinery humming that would benefit so many other people, he loved the fact that we had good public schools. He told me: Son, because we live in America and have these public schools, if you go through the door of that schoolhouse and you study hard, you can do almost anything in our country. What a glorious vision for an ordinary, working American to say to their child: Because we live in America, you can do almost anything, in our country. The horizons are boundless because we have good public schools. But it is 11 weeks since the House acted. Have we acted to provide good public schools? All of our teachers and our administrators and our parents and our school boards are saying we are just around the corner from the ordinary start of school. It is either just before or just after Labor Day. Where is the U.S. Senate? Mitch McConnell sent us home. He shut this place down while our children's education, preparation for a very unusual and difficult year, goes untended because there aren't the resources. I can tell you, I am hearing a lot from the medical community. My wife, Mary, is a nurse. She is a home hospice nurse, so she goes and coaches families as their loved one goes through the final chapter of their life here on our planet. A lot of these folks that she visits, because they are in hospice, it, by definition, means they are quite ill. Often, the families around them are elderly, and they are very concerned about any presence of COVID, coronavirus. What she hears is that we need to tackle this pandemic. What do the scientists and healthcare experts say? They say a national investment in personal protective equipment; they say a national investment in a testing strategy to be able to do massive numbers of tests to help identify folks who are carrying the virus and spreading the virus but are asymptomatic, as well as those who actually have symptoms; and a massive national investment in tracing so that we can follow up when somebody is identified as carrying the virus--Who did they get it from? Who did they have contact with?--so those folks can go into quarantine and stop the chain of infection from person to person to person. The House, 11 weeks ago, passed a bill that has massive resources for testing and tracing, and for 11 weeks, the leadership of this body has said: Not needed. Let's do nothing. Let's just treat this as just another Thursday. No concern. Then I hear from folks who are really worried about the nutrition for our children--not just the education but nutrition. We worked hard to get the EBT program to help out because of school sites being shut down, but what about this coming year? Why aren't we helping with nutrition? The House, 11 weeks ago, acted, but here, it is just another Thursday--no crisis, no concern when children across America are going hungry. The bill that the House passed had resources for State and local government to help address the hemorrhaging of funds. I noted that Oregon predicts, just in its State government, a loss of $10 billion over next three biennium--or this biennium and the next two. For them to sustain their basic programs, they need help. I heard today from the president of one of our public universities--our 4-year university, Oregon State University in Corvallis--and they were estimating a massive loss of revenue. They need this bill, which would direct support for our 4-year institutions. They know that the State, if it is going to be able to sustain its support for the universities, so that the money doesn't come in the front door and out the back door, we need to provide help to the State government. I know this isn't a blue-red issue. I know that blue and red Governors are saying the same thing. I know blue and red county commissioners are asking for the same help. So I say to my colleagues, it is morally unacceptable to just say: This is another Thursday. All is well. We have waited 11 weeks to act after the House. What is another week? What does it matter if a family that has been able to pay its rent or its mortgage or its utilities or put food on the table because they got $600 a week extra help in unemployment, what does it matter if they lose their home? What does it matter if they are evicted? Well, I will tell you this: It matters a hell of a lot--a huge impact on that family for a long time to come. I don't know how many of my colleagues have worked in the area of assisting homeless families, but when you are destabilized, when you are tossed out, when you experience homelessness, when you are living in your car with your kids or it is a basement this week and it is a van the next and who knows what shelter will let you in, it destabilizes and knocks you down for a long time. It makes it hard to get ready to go to a job interview. It makes it hard to present yourself effectively in a job interview. It puts all kinds of stresses on the family relationship. Is it really OK that we shut the Senate down when families are going to be evicted because we shut off that $600 per week and the moratorium on evictions expired? This, colleagues, is not just another Thursday. This is a moment of national crisis, a pandemic crisis, an economic crisis, and we need to be in crisis mode. We need to be here day and night. We need to be working on each of these issues that were addressed 11 weeks ago in the House while this body sat on its hands. Sitting on your hands when the people of America need us, that is not acceptable in the U.S. Senate. Let's act boldly. Let's act decisively. Let's recognize that we must rise to meet this national challenge and do so now. I yield to my colleague from Michigan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5258 | null | 1,174 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, is this just another Thursday? Are things going along well in America, with nothing to worry about, nothing to keep us up at night, nothing to keep mothers and fathers up worried about the health of their children? Is this just another Thursday with America doing well, or are we here in the midst of the worst pandemic in a century since the Spanish flu? You wouldn't know it from this Chamber. You wouldn't know it from the majority leader's shutting this place down. Is it possible that we are in the worst economic implosion since the Great Depression? Is this just another Thursday? You wouldn't know that we are in a terrible economic collapse based on the fact that the majority leader is treating this period of time like just another Thursday, when everything is fine and everything is good in America. It is almost 3 months ago that the House passed a robust bill to address the pandemic and to address the economic implosion--3 months ago. Why didn't the Senate say immediately, we will act, as well, because we are having big issues in America? They didn't act after the first week after the House acted. They just treated it like another week, no concerns. They didn't act in the second week. We are now 11 weeks since the House acted and still the majority leader says: Don't worry, be happy. It is just another Thursday. All is good in America--no concerns, no anxiety, no worry. Just be happy. I can tell you what I am hearing from Oregonians. They are saying it is not just another Thursday. They are saying our State government is estimated to lose $10 billion in revenue over the next two bienniums--a little less than $3 billion this biennium, a little more than $4 billion in the next biennium, and about $3 billion after that. That is $10 billion of lost revenue for core programs, like healthcare, housing, education, and transportation. That is a pretty big deal in terms of the foundations for the programs Oregonians count on. I am hearing from a whole lot of parents--moms and dads--and they are saying: This is not just another Thursday. We are worried about our children's education. I recognize there are a lot of rich people in America paying for tutors for their children, maybe two tutors for a child--maybe a math tutor and a reading tutor, maybe a special education tutor, who knows--because they are rich. You know what, most of America are ordinary Americans who count on the quality of our public schools. I can tell you, a lot of parents are worried about how are they going to be able to have an education for their children given the challenge in the school if the school can't afford to convert the way it operates, either in the school, in a very altered manner, or providing workstations and computers and broadband so every child has the ability to work online. Now, we know that even that is going to be far insufficient because so many children are in households where there isn't going to be the type of full-on, all-day assistance to help them utilize that online access. We know that. Shouldn't we be providing the resources to minimize the gap between the best-off and ordinary families? Shouldn't we be trying to do everything for our children? My dad was a mechanic. A mechanic who works in the sawmill is called a millwright. He said it is the best job in the world. If he could keep the machinery humming, it meant that every worker had a job to come to, and it meant the company made money. Everybody was happy if he could keep the machinery running, and he did. He did a marvelous job. He was pretty disappointed when the company was bought by an investor and the mill was shut down overnight and the timber that the company had was sold to another company, a bigger company. But, in that context of a father with a powerful ability to keep machinery humming that would benefit so many other people, he loved the fact that we had good public schools. He told me: Son, because we live in America and have these public schools, if you go through the door of that schoolhouse and you study hard, you can do almost anything in our country. What a glorious vision for an ordinary, working American to say to their child: Because we live in America, you can do almost anything, in our country. The horizons are boundless because we have good public schools. But it is 11 weeks since the House acted. Have we acted to provide good public schools? All of our teachers and our administrators and our parents and our school boards are saying we are just around the corner from the ordinary start of school. It is either just before or just after Labor Day. Where is the U.S. Senate? Mitch McConnell sent us home. He shut this place down while our children's education, preparation for a very unusual and difficult year, goes untended because there aren't the resources. I can tell you, I am hearing a lot from the medical community. My wife, Mary, is a nurse. She is a home hospice nurse, so she goes and coaches families as their loved one goes through the final chapter of their life here on our planet. A lot of these folks that she visits, because they are in hospice, it, by definition, means they are quite ill. Often, the families around them are elderly, and they are very concerned about any presence of COVID, coronavirus. What she hears is that we need to tackle this pandemic. What do the scientists and healthcare experts say? They say a national investment in personal protective equipment; they say a national investment in a testing strategy to be able to do massive numbers of tests to help identify folks who are carrying the virus and spreading the virus but are asymptomatic, as well as those who actually have symptoms; and a massive national investment in tracing so that we can follow up when somebody is identified as carrying the virus--Who did they get it from? Who did they have contact with?--so those folks can go into quarantine and stop the chain of infection from person to person to person. The House, 11 weeks ago, passed a bill that has massive resources for testing and tracing, and for 11 weeks, the leadership of this body has said: Not needed. Let's do nothing. Let's just treat this as just another Thursday. No concern. Then I hear from folks who are really worried about the nutrition for our children--not just the education but nutrition. We worked hard to get the EBT program to help out because of school sites being shut down, but what about this coming year? Why aren't we helping with nutrition? The House, 11 weeks ago, acted, but here, it is just another Thursday--no crisis, no concern when children across America are going hungry. The bill that the House passed had resources for State and local government to help address the hemorrhaging of funds. I noted that Oregon predicts, just in its State government, a loss of $10 billion over next three biennium--or this biennium and the next two. For them to sustain their basic programs, they need help. I heard today from the president of one of our public universities--our 4-year university, Oregon State University in Corvallis--and they were estimating a massive loss of revenue. They need this bill, which would direct support for our 4-year institutions. They know that the State, if it is going to be able to sustain its support for the universities, so that the money doesn't come in the front door and out the back door, we need to provide help to the State government. I know this isn't a blue-red issue. I know that blue and red Governors are saying the same thing. I know blue and red county commissioners are asking for the same help. So I say to my colleagues, it is morally unacceptable to just say: This is another Thursday. All is well. We have waited 11 weeks to act after the House. What is another week? What does it matter if a family that has been able to pay its rent or its mortgage or its utilities or put food on the table because they got $600 a week extra help in unemployment, what does it matter if they lose their home? What does it matter if they are evicted? Well, I will tell you this: It matters a hell of a lot--a huge impact on that family for a long time to come. I don't know how many of my colleagues have worked in the area of assisting homeless families, but when you are destabilized, when you are tossed out, when you experience homelessness, when you are living in your car with your kids or it is a basement this week and it is a van the next and who knows what shelter will let you in, it destabilizes and knocks you down for a long time. It makes it hard to get ready to go to a job interview. It makes it hard to present yourself effectively in a job interview. It puts all kinds of stresses on the family relationship. Is it really OK that we shut the Senate down when families are going to be evicted because we shut off that $600 per week and the moratorium on evictions expired? This, colleagues, is not just another Thursday. This is a moment of national crisis, a pandemic crisis, an economic crisis, and we need to be in crisis mode. We need to be here day and night. We need to be working on each of these issues that were addressed 11 weeks ago in the House while this body sat on its hands. Sitting on your hands when the people of America need us, that is not acceptable in the U.S. Senate. Let's act boldly. Let's act decisively. Let's recognize that we must rise to meet this national challenge and do so now. I yield to my colleague from Michigan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5258 | null | 1,175 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to thank both of my friends from Oregon. We are Oregon strong on the floor. We have great, powerful, effective Senators from Oregon, and I want to thank Senator Merkley for his words, as well as my colleagues and friends from Delaware and New Hampshire and Maryland. We are on the floor today because we know this isn't just another regular Thursday where you can close up for the week and go home and do whatever is going to be done and then maybe come back Monday, maybe Tuesday, maybe Wednesday. We don't know because we don't know what is happening on negotiations. But, oh, well, there is no real sense of urgency anyway, right? There is an incredible sense of urgency, and, as we have been saying this afternoon, this should not be treated like just another end of the Senate week on a Thursday afternoon. We have the largest health pandemic in a hundred years. As of today, it is about 160,000 deaths in this country. You can't even wrap your head around that: 160,000 people. Yet we are a little over 4 percent of the world's population. We have 25 percent of the deaths. This did not have to happen. This should never have happened. It should never have happened. And to be in a situation where people are acting as if we have got all the time in the world--how many people have to die before we wrap our arms around what is happening and have a national strategy on testing and on contact tracing and a national strategy to make sure we have all of the testing materials and the PPE and everything that our doctors and nurses and other professionals need and we are treating this with the seriousness that it deserves? This is a health pandemic. We have to get our arms around this. We have to be able to manage it until we can get vaccines. We did come together and work together on a bipartisan basis in the beginning. That is what is just so frustrating and disheartening and maddening about this situation we are in now, as we go forward, because it is not done. I wish it was, for my own family and everyone else's. It is not even close to being done, and we have a responsibility to continue to be there and to have people's backs to address the pandemic and all of the economic hardship that has happened as a result of that. Now, in the CARES package, it was comprehensive. It was great that we were able to come together. One of the things was that the Treasury, the Fed, was able to basically have the capacity to have a safety net under the stock market, under our large businesses: Don't worry. Keep investing. We have got a safety net for you. But for somebody on unemployment, somebody who is worrying about feeding their children tonight, tomorrow, the next day--somebody who is worried that the water is going to get shut off or they are going to lose their shelter right in the middle of a pandemic when we tell people, ``stay home and, by the way, wash your hands frequently,'' and then the water gets turned off or you have no shelter and you are on the street or you can't feed the kids, or the additional money--the $600 that was allowing you to pay those bills--goes away, which is about a 60-percent cut, in Michigan, for people getting help--no safety net for you. Unh-unh. There are over 31 million people right now who are on unemployment insurance, and somehow, people want to have us believe that nobody wants to work, that there are over 31 million jobs out there and people just don't want to take them; they just don't want to work. I can tell you that is not true in Michigan. People in Michigan work. We grow things. We make things. We innovate. We build things. People in Michigan work and work hard. It is not their fault that we have a 100-year health pandemic that has pushed everybody back down and taken away the capacity for businesses to be safely open and for people to continue their jobs. People would expect that in the United States of America all of us would care about that and that it wouldn't just be another Thursday afternoon, closing up shop for the weekend or beyond. There is one other thing I want to stress when we talk about supporting communities right now. The President said: It is up to the Governors to step up. It is up to local communities to step up to keep people safe. No national response is necessary. It is the Governors, the mayors, the county commissioners. They have done that. They have done that. They took all of their resources to make sure they could do everything humanly possible to make sure they could help people be safe: Get the PPE, create a way for people to get testing, do all of the other things to help people. Now, for the Senate and for the President of the United States to say that we have no responsibility to step up and have their back and support them is incredibly irresponsible. What I find so interesting--who are we talking about locally? We want the restaurants to open. Yet you have to have a food inspector before you can open the restaurant. In Michigan, that is funded through the county--through county government. We are concerned about first responders--police and fire and 9-1-1 call centers and all of the people who respond to keep us safe. Do you know who the largest group is that will be losing their jobs without help for local communities and States? It is the first responders and law enforcement. In fact, I had a very prominent police leader in Michigan tell me that the only people he saw trying to defund the police were Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell because they didn't and aren't--the Senate Republicans aren't willing to step up to support funding for first responders, as well as the public health department, as well as the teachers, as well as everyone else involved. These are not normal times. These are not normal times in terms of the health risks for families. These are not normal times in terms of our economy and what is happening--not even to count the fact that racial disparities are on full display now in front of us in every part of our economy and services. This is not a normal time. This should not be a normal Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate. Every single one of my Democratic colleagues feels a sense of urgency and panic about what is happening. People need help. There are incredible hardships, and they deserve that help. The U.S. House of Representatives passed help over 2\1/2\ months ago. Senator McConnell at the time said that he felt no sense of urgency. In fact, he suggested that States and cities go bankrupt. That is one way to do it: Lay off all the police officers, firefighters, food inspectors, teachers. People in our country--and I know people in Michigan--feel an incredible sense of urgency to both manage and get beyond this healthcare pandemic, which is not going to be easy. It is going to take all of us working together. But they are anxious to do that, and they are anxious to open up the economy safely and to open up our schools safely and to know that there is some sense of normalcy that we can count on again. That is going to take all of us working together on a bipartisan basis to get it done. It is going to take a sense of urgency, a sense of responsibility for the role that we play at this moment in time in the history of our country and people's lives. It is going to take a lot of hard work. It is going to take political will more than anything else because the other things we can do. We have to decide we to want to do them. I hope very, very soon that Senator McConnell, our Senate Republican colleagues, the President and the White House decide that they want to work with us to really get things done for people all across our country. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. STABENOW | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5259 | null | 1,176 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to thank both of my friends from Oregon. We are Oregon strong on the floor. We have great, powerful, effective Senators from Oregon, and I want to thank Senator Merkley for his words, as well as my colleagues and friends from Delaware and New Hampshire and Maryland. We are on the floor today because we know this isn't just another regular Thursday where you can close up for the week and go home and do whatever is going to be done and then maybe come back Monday, maybe Tuesday, maybe Wednesday. We don't know because we don't know what is happening on negotiations. But, oh, well, there is no real sense of urgency anyway, right? There is an incredible sense of urgency, and, as we have been saying this afternoon, this should not be treated like just another end of the Senate week on a Thursday afternoon. We have the largest health pandemic in a hundred years. As of today, it is about 160,000 deaths in this country. You can't even wrap your head around that: 160,000 people. Yet we are a little over 4 percent of the world's population. We have 25 percent of the deaths. This did not have to happen. This should never have happened. It should never have happened. And to be in a situation where people are acting as if we have got all the time in the world--how many people have to die before we wrap our arms around what is happening and have a national strategy on testing and on contact tracing and a national strategy to make sure we have all of the testing materials and the PPE and everything that our doctors and nurses and other professionals need and we are treating this with the seriousness that it deserves? This is a health pandemic. We have to get our arms around this. We have to be able to manage it until we can get vaccines. We did come together and work together on a bipartisan basis in the beginning. That is what is just so frustrating and disheartening and maddening about this situation we are in now, as we go forward, because it is not done. I wish it was, for my own family and everyone else's. It is not even close to being done, and we have a responsibility to continue to be there and to have people's backs to address the pandemic and all of the economic hardship that has happened as a result of that. Now, in the CARES package, it was comprehensive. It was great that we were able to come together. One of the things was that the Treasury, the Fed, was able to basically have the capacity to have a safety net under the stock market, under our large businesses: Don't worry. Keep investing. We have got a safety net for you. But for somebody on unemployment, somebody who is worrying about feeding their children tonight, tomorrow, the next day--somebody who is worried that the water is going to get shut off or they are going to lose their shelter right in the middle of a pandemic when we tell people, ``stay home and, by the way, wash your hands frequently,'' and then the water gets turned off or you have no shelter and you are on the street or you can't feed the kids, or the additional money--the $600 that was allowing you to pay those bills--goes away, which is about a 60-percent cut, in Michigan, for people getting help--no safety net for you. Unh-unh. There are over 31 million people right now who are on unemployment insurance, and somehow, people want to have us believe that nobody wants to work, that there are over 31 million jobs out there and people just don't want to take them; they just don't want to work. I can tell you that is not true in Michigan. People in Michigan work. We grow things. We make things. We innovate. We build things. People in Michigan work and work hard. It is not their fault that we have a 100-year health pandemic that has pushed everybody back down and taken away the capacity for businesses to be safely open and for people to continue their jobs. People would expect that in the United States of America all of us would care about that and that it wouldn't just be another Thursday afternoon, closing up shop for the weekend or beyond. There is one other thing I want to stress when we talk about supporting communities right now. The President said: It is up to the Governors to step up. It is up to local communities to step up to keep people safe. No national response is necessary. It is the Governors, the mayors, the county commissioners. They have done that. They have done that. They took all of their resources to make sure they could do everything humanly possible to make sure they could help people be safe: Get the PPE, create a way for people to get testing, do all of the other things to help people. Now, for the Senate and for the President of the United States to say that we have no responsibility to step up and have their back and support them is incredibly irresponsible. What I find so interesting--who are we talking about locally? We want the restaurants to open. Yet you have to have a food inspector before you can open the restaurant. In Michigan, that is funded through the county--through county government. We are concerned about first responders--police and fire and 9-1-1 call centers and all of the people who respond to keep us safe. Do you know who the largest group is that will be losing their jobs without help for local communities and States? It is the first responders and law enforcement. In fact, I had a very prominent police leader in Michigan tell me that the only people he saw trying to defund the police were Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell because they didn't and aren't--the Senate Republicans aren't willing to step up to support funding for first responders, as well as the public health department, as well as the teachers, as well as everyone else involved. These are not normal times. These are not normal times in terms of the health risks for families. These are not normal times in terms of our economy and what is happening--not even to count the fact that racial disparities are on full display now in front of us in every part of our economy and services. This is not a normal time. This should not be a normal Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate. Every single one of my Democratic colleagues feels a sense of urgency and panic about what is happening. People need help. There are incredible hardships, and they deserve that help. The U.S. House of Representatives passed help over 2\1/2\ months ago. Senator McConnell at the time said that he felt no sense of urgency. In fact, he suggested that States and cities go bankrupt. That is one way to do it: Lay off all the police officers, firefighters, food inspectors, teachers. People in our country--and I know people in Michigan--feel an incredible sense of urgency to both manage and get beyond this healthcare pandemic, which is not going to be easy. It is going to take all of us working together. But they are anxious to do that, and they are anxious to open up the economy safely and to open up our schools safely and to know that there is some sense of normalcy that we can count on again. That is going to take all of us working together on a bipartisan basis to get it done. It is going to take a sense of urgency, a sense of responsibility for the role that we play at this moment in time in the history of our country and people's lives. It is going to take a lot of hard work. It is going to take political will more than anything else because the other things we can do. We have to decide we to want to do them. I hope very, very soon that Senator McConnell, our Senate Republican colleagues, the President and the White House decide that they want to work with us to really get things done for people all across our country. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. STABENOW | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5259 | null | 1,177 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in his powerful eulogy for Congressman John Lewis, President Barack Obama described John Lewis as a man who ``brought this country a little bit closer to our highest ideals.'' President Obama went on to say, ``And someday when we do finish that long journey towards freedom, when we do form a more perfect union--whether it's years from now or decades or even if it takes another two centuries--John Lewis will be a founding father of that fuller, fairer, better America.'' Such a beautiful and fitting epitaph. Another founder of that ``fuller, fairer, better America'' was the Reverend Dr. C.T. Vivian. C.T. Vivian and John Lewis departed this life on the same day. The timing of their leaving is proof, perhaps, that Mark Twain was right when he said that history does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Who was C.T. Vivian? Martin Luther King called him ``the greatest preacher ever to live.'' The Reverend Gerald Durley, who met C.T. Vivian in 1960 when Durley was a member of the Nashville Student Movement and who delivered the eulogy at his home going, called Dr. Vivian ``the most patient impatient man'' he ever met. Patient with people but impatient with injustice. C.T. Vivian was mentor to John Lewis, Diane Nash, and many other brave young civil rights activists a half century ago. Before they sat at those segregated lunch counters or boarded those Freedom Rider buses, Dr. Vivian taught them about the tactics--and the transformative power--of nonviolent civil disobedience. He was as a Baptist minister, an early civil rights organizer, and a member of Martin Luther King's inner circle or advisers. As field general for Dr. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. Vivian was the national director of some 85 local affiliate chapters of the SCLC from 1963 to 1966, directing protest activities and training in nonviolence, and coordinating voter registration and community development projects. He led passive protests through angry mobs and was beaten viciously by segregationists, but he never once struck back. He received his first beating in 1961 on a Freedom Ride to Mississippi. In 1964, a white mob beat him with chains and nearly drowned him in the Atlantic Ocean in St. Augustine, FL. In Selma, AL, in 1965, 2 weeks before Bloody Sunday, Dr. Vivian was trying to register Africa-American residents to vote when Sheriff Jim Clark punched him in the mouth so hard that the blow sent the minister reeling down the courthouse steps. Sheriff Clark then ordered deputies to arrest him for ``criminal provocation.'' Television coverage of Dr. Vivian being dragged away, blood streaming down his face, helped galvanize the voting rights movement. C.T. Vivian was a hero to all Americans, but many in my State feel a special connection to him because of the formative years he spent among us. He was, like many great Illinoisans, an adopted son of the Land of Lincoln. He was born Cordy Tindell Vivian in Boonville, Missouri, on July 30, 1924, the only child of Robert and Euzetta Tindell Vivian. His father left the family when he was a baby. His mother lost the family farm in the Depression and the family home in town to arson. When C.T. was 6, he moved with this mother and maternal grandmother to Macomb, Illinois. The women chose Macomb because its public schools were integrated. They had great expectations for C.T. and they believed in the power of education. C.T. Vivian joined his first protest in Peoria, IL, in 1947, helping to desegregate a downtown cafeteria. In many parts of Illinois at the time, segregation of public facilities was not a law, but it was a custom rigidly enforced. He first heard Dr. King speak in 1957, while studying for the ministry at the American Baptist College in Nashville. In 1959, he met th Reverend James Lawson, who was teaching nonviolent strategies to members of the Nashville Student Movement, including a young John Lewis. After leaving the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1966, Dr. Vivian returned to Illinois--this time to Chicago--to direct the Urban Training Center for Christian Missions, where he trained clergy, community leaders and others to organize. He worked to advance civil rights and educational and economic opportunities for African Americans, and to reduce the gang violence that ensnared to many young Black men. He left Chicago in 1972 to become dean of the Shaw University Divinity School in Raleigh, NC. He moved to Atlanta later in the 1970s and founded the C.T. Vivian Leadership Institute, to continue to train the next generation of leaders in the principals and tactics of nonviolent change. In 2013, Dr. Vivian received the Presidential Medal of Freedom--our Nation's highest civilian honor, from President Barack Obama. It was a moving and historic moment and I was honored to be there. He died on July 17, 2 weeks shy of his 96th birthday. He is buried in Atlanta next to his fellow foot soldier for justice, Dr. King. In the last calendar year, we have lost Elijah Cummings, the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowry, John Lewis and Dr. C.T. Vivian--all giants in the civil rights movement. This is the passing of a great generation, founders of the ``fuller, fairer, better America,'' as President Obama said. As we mourn their passing, let us also give thanks for their lives, and resolve to use the blueprints they left us to continue towards a more perfect union. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5262-2 | null | 1,178 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in his powerful eulogy for Congressman John Lewis, President Barack Obama described John Lewis as a man who ``brought this country a little bit closer to our highest ideals.'' President Obama went on to say, ``And someday when we do finish that long journey towards freedom, when we do form a more perfect union--whether it's years from now or decades or even if it takes another two centuries--John Lewis will be a founding father of that fuller, fairer, better America.'' Such a beautiful and fitting epitaph. Another founder of that ``fuller, fairer, better America'' was the Reverend Dr. C.T. Vivian. C.T. Vivian and John Lewis departed this life on the same day. The timing of their leaving is proof, perhaps, that Mark Twain was right when he said that history does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Who was C.T. Vivian? Martin Luther King called him ``the greatest preacher ever to live.'' The Reverend Gerald Durley, who met C.T. Vivian in 1960 when Durley was a member of the Nashville Student Movement and who delivered the eulogy at his home going, called Dr. Vivian ``the most patient impatient man'' he ever met. Patient with people but impatient with injustice. C.T. Vivian was mentor to John Lewis, Diane Nash, and many other brave young civil rights activists a half century ago. Before they sat at those segregated lunch counters or boarded those Freedom Rider buses, Dr. Vivian taught them about the tactics--and the transformative power--of nonviolent civil disobedience. He was as a Baptist minister, an early civil rights organizer, and a member of Martin Luther King's inner circle or advisers. As field general for Dr. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. Vivian was the national director of some 85 local affiliate chapters of the SCLC from 1963 to 1966, directing protest activities and training in nonviolence, and coordinating voter registration and community development projects. He led passive protests through angry mobs and was beaten viciously by segregationists, but he never once struck back. He received his first beating in 1961 on a Freedom Ride to Mississippi. In 1964, a white mob beat him with chains and nearly drowned him in the Atlantic Ocean in St. Augustine, FL. In Selma, AL, in 1965, 2 weeks before Bloody Sunday, Dr. Vivian was trying to register Africa-American residents to vote when Sheriff Jim Clark punched him in the mouth so hard that the blow sent the minister reeling down the courthouse steps. Sheriff Clark then ordered deputies to arrest him for ``criminal provocation.'' Television coverage of Dr. Vivian being dragged away, blood streaming down his face, helped galvanize the voting rights movement. C.T. Vivian was a hero to all Americans, but many in my State feel a special connection to him because of the formative years he spent among us. He was, like many great Illinoisans, an adopted son of the Land of Lincoln. He was born Cordy Tindell Vivian in Boonville, Missouri, on July 30, 1924, the only child of Robert and Euzetta Tindell Vivian. His father left the family when he was a baby. His mother lost the family farm in the Depression and the family home in town to arson. When C.T. was 6, he moved with this mother and maternal grandmother to Macomb, Illinois. The women chose Macomb because its public schools were integrated. They had great expectations for C.T. and they believed in the power of education. C.T. Vivian joined his first protest in Peoria, IL, in 1947, helping to desegregate a downtown cafeteria. In many parts of Illinois at the time, segregation of public facilities was not a law, but it was a custom rigidly enforced. He first heard Dr. King speak in 1957, while studying for the ministry at the American Baptist College in Nashville. In 1959, he met th Reverend James Lawson, who was teaching nonviolent strategies to members of the Nashville Student Movement, including a young John Lewis. After leaving the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1966, Dr. Vivian returned to Illinois--this time to Chicago--to direct the Urban Training Center for Christian Missions, where he trained clergy, community leaders and others to organize. He worked to advance civil rights and educational and economic opportunities for African Americans, and to reduce the gang violence that ensnared to many young Black men. He left Chicago in 1972 to become dean of the Shaw University Divinity School in Raleigh, NC. He moved to Atlanta later in the 1970s and founded the C.T. Vivian Leadership Institute, to continue to train the next generation of leaders in the principals and tactics of nonviolent change. In 2013, Dr. Vivian received the Presidential Medal of Freedom--our Nation's highest civilian honor, from President Barack Obama. It was a moving and historic moment and I was honored to be there. He died on July 17, 2 weeks shy of his 96th birthday. He is buried in Atlanta next to his fellow foot soldier for justice, Dr. King. In the last calendar year, we have lost Elijah Cummings, the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowry, John Lewis and Dr. C.T. Vivian--all giants in the civil rights movement. This is the passing of a great generation, founders of the ``fuller, fairer, better America,'' as President Obama said. As we mourn their passing, let us also give thanks for their lives, and resolve to use the blueprints they left us to continue towards a more perfect union. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5262-2 | null | 1,179 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in his powerful eulogy for Congressman John Lewis, President Barack Obama described John Lewis as a man who ``brought this country a little bit closer to our highest ideals.'' President Obama went on to say, ``And someday when we do finish that long journey towards freedom, when we do form a more perfect union--whether it's years from now or decades or even if it takes another two centuries--John Lewis will be a founding father of that fuller, fairer, better America.'' Such a beautiful and fitting epitaph. Another founder of that ``fuller, fairer, better America'' was the Reverend Dr. C.T. Vivian. C.T. Vivian and John Lewis departed this life on the same day. The timing of their leaving is proof, perhaps, that Mark Twain was right when he said that history does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Who was C.T. Vivian? Martin Luther King called him ``the greatest preacher ever to live.'' The Reverend Gerald Durley, who met C.T. Vivian in 1960 when Durley was a member of the Nashville Student Movement and who delivered the eulogy at his home going, called Dr. Vivian ``the most patient impatient man'' he ever met. Patient with people but impatient with injustice. C.T. Vivian was mentor to John Lewis, Diane Nash, and many other brave young civil rights activists a half century ago. Before they sat at those segregated lunch counters or boarded those Freedom Rider buses, Dr. Vivian taught them about the tactics--and the transformative power--of nonviolent civil disobedience. He was as a Baptist minister, an early civil rights organizer, and a member of Martin Luther King's inner circle or advisers. As field general for Dr. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. Vivian was the national director of some 85 local affiliate chapters of the SCLC from 1963 to 1966, directing protest activities and training in nonviolence, and coordinating voter registration and community development projects. He led passive protests through angry mobs and was beaten viciously by segregationists, but he never once struck back. He received his first beating in 1961 on a Freedom Ride to Mississippi. In 1964, a white mob beat him with chains and nearly drowned him in the Atlantic Ocean in St. Augustine, FL. In Selma, AL, in 1965, 2 weeks before Bloody Sunday, Dr. Vivian was trying to register Africa-American residents to vote when Sheriff Jim Clark punched him in the mouth so hard that the blow sent the minister reeling down the courthouse steps. Sheriff Clark then ordered deputies to arrest him for ``criminal provocation.'' Television coverage of Dr. Vivian being dragged away, blood streaming down his face, helped galvanize the voting rights movement. C.T. Vivian was a hero to all Americans, but many in my State feel a special connection to him because of the formative years he spent among us. He was, like many great Illinoisans, an adopted son of the Land of Lincoln. He was born Cordy Tindell Vivian in Boonville, Missouri, on July 30, 1924, the only child of Robert and Euzetta Tindell Vivian. His father left the family when he was a baby. His mother lost the family farm in the Depression and the family home in town to arson. When C.T. was 6, he moved with this mother and maternal grandmother to Macomb, Illinois. The women chose Macomb because its public schools were integrated. They had great expectations for C.T. and they believed in the power of education. C.T. Vivian joined his first protest in Peoria, IL, in 1947, helping to desegregate a downtown cafeteria. In many parts of Illinois at the time, segregation of public facilities was not a law, but it was a custom rigidly enforced. He first heard Dr. King speak in 1957, while studying for the ministry at the American Baptist College in Nashville. In 1959, he met th Reverend James Lawson, who was teaching nonviolent strategies to members of the Nashville Student Movement, including a young John Lewis. After leaving the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1966, Dr. Vivian returned to Illinois--this time to Chicago--to direct the Urban Training Center for Christian Missions, where he trained clergy, community leaders and others to organize. He worked to advance civil rights and educational and economic opportunities for African Americans, and to reduce the gang violence that ensnared to many young Black men. He left Chicago in 1972 to become dean of the Shaw University Divinity School in Raleigh, NC. He moved to Atlanta later in the 1970s and founded the C.T. Vivian Leadership Institute, to continue to train the next generation of leaders in the principals and tactics of nonviolent change. In 2013, Dr. Vivian received the Presidential Medal of Freedom--our Nation's highest civilian honor, from President Barack Obama. It was a moving and historic moment and I was honored to be there. He died on July 17, 2 weeks shy of his 96th birthday. He is buried in Atlanta next to his fellow foot soldier for justice, Dr. King. In the last calendar year, we have lost Elijah Cummings, the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowry, John Lewis and Dr. C.T. Vivian--all giants in the civil rights movement. This is the passing of a great generation, founders of the ``fuller, fairer, better America,'' as President Obama said. As we mourn their passing, let us also give thanks for their lives, and resolve to use the blueprints they left us to continue towards a more perfect union. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5262-2 | null | 1,180 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 1971, a young doctor named Babu Prasad boarded a plane in his native India, headed for America. He was 24 years old and 1 year out of medical school. His first stop was Canton, OH where he worked for a short while before moving to Chicago to complete a residency in anesthesiology at the University of Illinois-Chicago. He spent the following decade practicing medicine in Alabama before returning to Illinois, this time to the Springfield area, where he spent the next 18 years practicing anesthesiology at HSHS St. John's Hospital before retiring in 2004. Two weeks ago, this doctor who arrived in America as a young man with no money announced that he was donating $1 million to HSHS St. John's to support a major expansion of the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit. An article in The State Journal-Register, Springfield's hometown newspaper, called Dr. Prasad's gift his ``love letter to the hospital and community.'' At a press conference announcing his donation, Dr. Prasad said simply: ``I want to give back to a country that has given so much to my family and me.'' ``Children are our future, so I wanted to direct by gift to the neonatal intensive care unit, to give the babies a healthy start in life,'' said Dr. Prasad. Dr. Prasad and his wife, Dr. Sudah Prasad, an immunologist, have been quiet and consistent donors to St. John's NICU over the years. Their latest gift of $1 million will support a major expansion of St. John's neonatal intensive care unit. The expansion, expected to be finished in February, will more than double the size of the current NICU and provide single-family patient rooms for premature and critically ill infants. As a father whose first baby came into this world with serious health challenges, I have a sense of what such supportive accommodations will mean to families of sick and fragile babies, and I am grateful to Dr. Prasad for his generous support of this worthy cause. St. John's was one of the first hospitals in Illinois to establish a NICU for premature and critically ill infants. Each year, about 2,00 babies are born at St. John's, and about 700 babies from 35 Illinois counties receive care in the hospital's NICU. In announcing Dr. Prasad's donation, Beverly Neisler, chief development officer for the HSHS St. John's Foundation said, ``Dr. Prasad's gift is a beautiful testament as to who he is as a person. He is a generous and kind man who has built a successful life through hard work, dedication and determination. He means so much to us.'' ``A golden opportunity'' is how Dr. Prasad remembers his chance to come to America nearly a half-century ago. ``It felt like heaven,'' he says, nothing like India in the 1970s. At 24, he had never before seen TV. Nearly 50 years later, Dr. Prasad is a father of three and grandfather of six. Two of his daughters have followed him into the medical profession. Dr. Prasad himself continues to practice anesthesiology and pain management 2 weeks each month at a private medical practice in the Springfield area. The current COVID crisis reminds us daily how much we depend on the skills and sacrifices of fronteline medical workers and how many of those medical workers are, like Dr. Prasad, immigrants. We are fortunate and we are safer and healthier because they have chosen to make America their home. On behalf of the families of Illinois, I want to thank Dr. Prasad again for keeping two generations of Illinoisans healthy and for his generous gift to future generations. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5262-3 | null | 1,181 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 1971, a young doctor named Babu Prasad boarded a plane in his native India, headed for America. He was 24 years old and 1 year out of medical school. His first stop was Canton, OH where he worked for a short while before moving to Chicago to complete a residency in anesthesiology at the University of Illinois-Chicago. He spent the following decade practicing medicine in Alabama before returning to Illinois, this time to the Springfield area, where he spent the next 18 years practicing anesthesiology at HSHS St. John's Hospital before retiring in 2004. Two weeks ago, this doctor who arrived in America as a young man with no money announced that he was donating $1 million to HSHS St. John's to support a major expansion of the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit. An article in The State Journal-Register, Springfield's hometown newspaper, called Dr. Prasad's gift his ``love letter to the hospital and community.'' At a press conference announcing his donation, Dr. Prasad said simply: ``I want to give back to a country that has given so much to my family and me.'' ``Children are our future, so I wanted to direct by gift to the neonatal intensive care unit, to give the babies a healthy start in life,'' said Dr. Prasad. Dr. Prasad and his wife, Dr. Sudah Prasad, an immunologist, have been quiet and consistent donors to St. John's NICU over the years. Their latest gift of $1 million will support a major expansion of St. John's neonatal intensive care unit. The expansion, expected to be finished in February, will more than double the size of the current NICU and provide single-family patient rooms for premature and critically ill infants. As a father whose first baby came into this world with serious health challenges, I have a sense of what such supportive accommodations will mean to families of sick and fragile babies, and I am grateful to Dr. Prasad for his generous support of this worthy cause. St. John's was one of the first hospitals in Illinois to establish a NICU for premature and critically ill infants. Each year, about 2,00 babies are born at St. John's, and about 700 babies from 35 Illinois counties receive care in the hospital's NICU. In announcing Dr. Prasad's donation, Beverly Neisler, chief development officer for the HSHS St. John's Foundation said, ``Dr. Prasad's gift is a beautiful testament as to who he is as a person. He is a generous and kind man who has built a successful life through hard work, dedication and determination. He means so much to us.'' ``A golden opportunity'' is how Dr. Prasad remembers his chance to come to America nearly a half-century ago. ``It felt like heaven,'' he says, nothing like India in the 1970s. At 24, he had never before seen TV. Nearly 50 years later, Dr. Prasad is a father of three and grandfather of six. Two of his daughters have followed him into the medical profession. Dr. Prasad himself continues to practice anesthesiology and pain management 2 weeks each month at a private medical practice in the Springfield area. The current COVID crisis reminds us daily how much we depend on the skills and sacrifices of fronteline medical workers and how many of those medical workers are, like Dr. Prasad, immigrants. We are fortunate and we are safer and healthier because they have chosen to make America their home. On behalf of the families of Illinois, I want to thank Dr. Prasad again for keeping two generations of Illinoisans healthy and for his generous gift to future generations. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5262-3 | null | 1,182 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Grassley, and Ms. Ernst): S. 4481. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to update the modeling used for lifecycle greenhouse gas assessments for corn-based ethanol and biodiesel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5277 | null | 1,183 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 674 Whereas World Refugee Day is a global event to acknowledge the courage, strength, and determination of women, men, and children who are forced to flee their homes due to persecution; Whereas, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (referred to in this preamble as ``UNHCR'') and section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)), as added by section 201 of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212), a refugee is a person who-- (1) is outside of the country of his or her nationality or habitual residence; and (2) is unable or unwilling to return because of a well- founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group; Whereas, according to the UNHCR, at the end of 2019-- (1) there were at least 79,500,000 forcibly displaced people worldwide, which is the worst displacement crisis in recorded history, including-- (A) 29,600,000 refugees; (B) more than 45,700,000 internally displaced people; and (C) 4,200,000 asylum seekers; (2) 1 person out of every 97 people worldwide was a refugee, an asylum seeker, or an internally displaced person; (3) the number of refugees under UNHCR's mandate had doubled since 2010; (4) 68 percent of the world's refugees came from only 5 countries (Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Burma); (5) 73 percent of all refugees were residing in countries adjacent to the countries from which they had fled; (6) approximately 31,000,000 of the people who had been forcibly displaced and 50 percent of all refugees were children younger than 18 years of age, millions of whom were unable to access basic services, including education; (7) approximately 11,000,000 people were newly displaced due to recent conflict or persecution, including 8,600,000 internally displaced persons and 2,400,000 refugees and asylum seekers, representing an average of at least 30,000 such people per day; (8) more than 50 percent of the population of Syria (at least 13,000,000 people) were displaced, either across the international border or within Syria, which represents the largest displacement crisis in the world today; (9) more than 1,400,000 refugees needed resettlement to a third country (an 80 percent increase since 2011), while only 107,800 refugees were resettled to a total of 26 countries; and (10) only 317,200 refugees voluntarily returned to their country or place of origin, which represents fewer than 2 percent of the 20,400,000 refugees under UNHCR's mandate; Whereas millions of refugees around the world are stateless (not recognized as nationals by any state) and therefore require a path to citizenship as part of any solution to their displacement; Whereas refugee children are 5 times more likely to be out of school than non-refugee children; Whereas refugees who are women and girls are often at greater risk of violence, human trafficking, exploitation, and gender-based violence; Whereas more than 50 percent of refugees reside in urban areas; Whereas 85 percent of refugees and asylum seekers reside in developing countries, which places enormous additional pressure on the already limited resources of those countries; Whereas the average length of time refugees remain displaced from their home country ranges between 10 and 26 years; Whereas while refugee resettlement is a critical solution for refugees, fewer than 10 percent of global resettlement needs have been met and global refugee resettlement opportunities have fallen by 50 percent since 2016; Whereas the United States resettlement program, which was established 40 years ago-- (1) is a lifesaving solution crucial to global humanitarian efforts; (2) strengthens global security; (3) advances United States foreign policy goals; (4) supports regional host countries; and (5) assists individuals and families in need; Whereas the United States annual refugee admissions ceiling fell from 85,000 in fiscal year 2016 to 18,000 in fiscal year 2020, which represents the lowest level in the history of the program; Whereas, as of June 19, 2020 (9 months into fiscal year 2020), the United States had welcomed only 7,684 refugees into the country, which is fewer than 50 percent of the President's 18,000 refugee admissions ceiling; Whereas, at this pace, the United States will not meet its fiscal year 2020 refugee admissions goal; Whereas, for fiscal year 2020, the United States, irrespective of global resettlement needs, designated new thematic and regional allocations for United States refugee admissions that prioritize-- (1) refugees fleeing persecution on account of religious persecution; (2) Iraqis; and (3) refugees from Central America; Whereas refugees are the most vetted travelers to enter the United States and are subject to extensive screening checks that may last between 18 months and 3 years, including in- person interviews, biometric data checks, and multiple interagency reviews; Whereas refugees-- (1) are major contributors to local economies; (2) pay an average of $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits; and (3) revitalize cities and towns by-- (A) offsetting population decline; and (B) boosting economic growth by opening businesses, paying taxes, and buying homes; Whereas certain industries and towns rely heavily on refugee workers to support their economic stability, and low rates of arrivals of refugees have had serious impacts on economic growth; and Whereas, during the COVID-19 pandemic-- (1) refugees, internally displaced persons, and asylum seekers, many of whom live in dangerously overcrowded settings and have inadequate access to basic services like healthcare, water, and sanitation, are especially vulnerable to the spread of the novel coronavirus; (2) well-intentioned government polices to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus may exacerbate inequalities and disproportionately impact those already suffering from conflict and persecution; (3) UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration suspended their international refugee resettlement operations for 3 months, which negatively affected at least 10,000 refugees who were already approved for travel to their respective countries of resettlement; (4) numerous countries have restricted access to asylum, including the United States, which summarily returned more than 40,000 asylum seekers gathered at the southern United States border back to Mexico and only permitted 2 individuals to remain in the United States to request humanitarian protection between March 21 and May 13, 2020; and (5) many refugees are serving as critical frontline health professionals and essential workers combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and other host countries: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) reaffirms the bipartisan commitment of the United States to promote the safety, health, and well-being of millions of refugees, including the education of refugee children and displaced persons who flee war, persecution, or torture in search of peace, hope, and freedom; (2) recognizes those individuals who have risked their lives working, either individually or for nongovernmental organizations and international agencies, such as UNHCR, to provide lifesaving assistance and protection for people displaced by conflicts around the world; (3) underscores the importance of the United States refugee resettlement program as a critical tool for the United States Government-- (A) to leverage foreign policy; (B) to strengthen national and regional security; and (C) to demonstrate international support of refugees; (4) calls upon the United States Government-- (A) to continue providing robust funding for refugee protection overseas and resettlement in the United States; (B) to uphold its international leadership role in responding to displacement crises with humanitarian assistance and protection of the most vulnerable populations; (C) to work in partnership with the international community to find solutions to existing conflicts and prevent new conflicts from beginning; (D) to ensure that-- (i) the United States refugee resettlement program is equipped to protect and support refugees; and (ii) the United States provides essential leadership to the international refugee assistance community and to local communities across the United States seeking to welcome refugees and to help them achieve the American dream; (E) to alleviate the burden placed on frontline refugee host countries, such as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the People's Republic of Bangladesh, the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Colombia, and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which receive the majority of the world's refugees, and provide these countries with humanitarian and development support; (F) to endorse the Global Compact for Refugees, affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 17, 2018, and join the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, done in Morocco July 11, 2018; (G) to terminate harmful policies that undermine refugee law and humanitarian principles, including-- (i) the closure of the United States border to asylum seekers; (ii) the Migrant Protection Protocols, implemented beginning on January 29, 2019; and (iii) the Asylum Cooperative Agreements signed with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in 2019; (H) to adopt a robust and inclusive interpretation of United States refugee law that takes into account the changed nature of conflict and persecution and increase complementary legal pathways for protection and entry into the United States; (I) to meet the challenges of the worst refugee crisis in recorded history by-- (i) restoring United States leadership on refugee resettlement; and (ii) increasing the number of refugees welcomed to and resettled in the United States to-- (I) not fewer than 18,000 refugees during fiscal year 2020; and (II) not fewer than 95,000 refugees during fiscal year 2021; and (J) to restore the United States' longstanding tradition of resettling the most vulnerable refugees and to avoid discrimination, including discrimination based on a refugee's nationality or religious beliefs; and (5) reaffirms the goals of World Refugee Day and reiterates the strong commitment to protect the millions of refugees who live without material, social, or legal protections. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5288 | null | 1,184 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 674 Whereas World Refugee Day is a global event to acknowledge the courage, strength, and determination of women, men, and children who are forced to flee their homes due to persecution; Whereas, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (referred to in this preamble as ``UNHCR'') and section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)), as added by section 201 of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212), a refugee is a person who-- (1) is outside of the country of his or her nationality or habitual residence; and (2) is unable or unwilling to return because of a well- founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group; Whereas, according to the UNHCR, at the end of 2019-- (1) there were at least 79,500,000 forcibly displaced people worldwide, which is the worst displacement crisis in recorded history, including-- (A) 29,600,000 refugees; (B) more than 45,700,000 internally displaced people; and (C) 4,200,000 asylum seekers; (2) 1 person out of every 97 people worldwide was a refugee, an asylum seeker, or an internally displaced person; (3) the number of refugees under UNHCR's mandate had doubled since 2010; (4) 68 percent of the world's refugees came from only 5 countries (Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Burma); (5) 73 percent of all refugees were residing in countries adjacent to the countries from which they had fled; (6) approximately 31,000,000 of the people who had been forcibly displaced and 50 percent of all refugees were children younger than 18 years of age, millions of whom were unable to access basic services, including education; (7) approximately 11,000,000 people were newly displaced due to recent conflict or persecution, including 8,600,000 internally displaced persons and 2,400,000 refugees and asylum seekers, representing an average of at least 30,000 such people per day; (8) more than 50 percent of the population of Syria (at least 13,000,000 people) were displaced, either across the international border or within Syria, which represents the largest displacement crisis in the world today; (9) more than 1,400,000 refugees needed resettlement to a third country (an 80 percent increase since 2011), while only 107,800 refugees were resettled to a total of 26 countries; and (10) only 317,200 refugees voluntarily returned to their country or place of origin, which represents fewer than 2 percent of the 20,400,000 refugees under UNHCR's mandate; Whereas millions of refugees around the world are stateless (not recognized as nationals by any state) and therefore require a path to citizenship as part of any solution to their displacement; Whereas refugee children are 5 times more likely to be out of school than non-refugee children; Whereas refugees who are women and girls are often at greater risk of violence, human trafficking, exploitation, and gender-based violence; Whereas more than 50 percent of refugees reside in urban areas; Whereas 85 percent of refugees and asylum seekers reside in developing countries, which places enormous additional pressure on the already limited resources of those countries; Whereas the average length of time refugees remain displaced from their home country ranges between 10 and 26 years; Whereas while refugee resettlement is a critical solution for refugees, fewer than 10 percent of global resettlement needs have been met and global refugee resettlement opportunities have fallen by 50 percent since 2016; Whereas the United States resettlement program, which was established 40 years ago-- (1) is a lifesaving solution crucial to global humanitarian efforts; (2) strengthens global security; (3) advances United States foreign policy goals; (4) supports regional host countries; and (5) assists individuals and families in need; Whereas the United States annual refugee admissions ceiling fell from 85,000 in fiscal year 2016 to 18,000 in fiscal year 2020, which represents the lowest level in the history of the program; Whereas, as of June 19, 2020 (9 months into fiscal year 2020), the United States had welcomed only 7,684 refugees into the country, which is fewer than 50 percent of the President's 18,000 refugee admissions ceiling; Whereas, at this pace, the United States will not meet its fiscal year 2020 refugee admissions goal; Whereas, for fiscal year 2020, the United States, irrespective of global resettlement needs, designated new thematic and regional allocations for United States refugee admissions that prioritize-- (1) refugees fleeing persecution on account of religious persecution; (2) Iraqis; and (3) refugees from Central America; Whereas refugees are the most vetted travelers to enter the United States and are subject to extensive screening checks that may last between 18 months and 3 years, including in- person interviews, biometric data checks, and multiple interagency reviews; Whereas refugees-- (1) are major contributors to local economies; (2) pay an average of $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits; and (3) revitalize cities and towns by-- (A) offsetting population decline; and (B) boosting economic growth by opening businesses, paying taxes, and buying homes; Whereas certain industries and towns rely heavily on refugee workers to support their economic stability, and low rates of arrivals of refugees have had serious impacts on economic growth; and Whereas, during the COVID-19 pandemic-- (1) refugees, internally displaced persons, and asylum seekers, many of whom live in dangerously overcrowded settings and have inadequate access to basic services like healthcare, water, and sanitation, are especially vulnerable to the spread of the novel coronavirus; (2) well-intentioned government polices to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus may exacerbate inequalities and disproportionately impact those already suffering from conflict and persecution; (3) UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration suspended their international refugee resettlement operations for 3 months, which negatively affected at least 10,000 refugees who were already approved for travel to their respective countries of resettlement; (4) numerous countries have restricted access to asylum, including the United States, which summarily returned more than 40,000 asylum seekers gathered at the southern United States border back to Mexico and only permitted 2 individuals to remain in the United States to request humanitarian protection between March 21 and May 13, 2020; and (5) many refugees are serving as critical frontline health professionals and essential workers combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and other host countries: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) reaffirms the bipartisan commitment of the United States to promote the safety, health, and well-being of millions of refugees, including the education of refugee children and displaced persons who flee war, persecution, or torture in search of peace, hope, and freedom; (2) recognizes those individuals who have risked their lives working, either individually or for nongovernmental organizations and international agencies, such as UNHCR, to provide lifesaving assistance and protection for people displaced by conflicts around the world; (3) underscores the importance of the United States refugee resettlement program as a critical tool for the United States Government-- (A) to leverage foreign policy; (B) to strengthen national and regional security; and (C) to demonstrate international support of refugees; (4) calls upon the United States Government-- (A) to continue providing robust funding for refugee protection overseas and resettlement in the United States; (B) to uphold its international leadership role in responding to displacement crises with humanitarian assistance and protection of the most vulnerable populations; (C) to work in partnership with the international community to find solutions to existing conflicts and prevent new conflicts from beginning; (D) to ensure that-- (i) the United States refugee resettlement program is equipped to protect and support refugees; and (ii) the United States provides essential leadership to the international refugee assistance community and to local communities across the United States seeking to welcome refugees and to help them achieve the American dream; (E) to alleviate the burden placed on frontline refugee host countries, such as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the People's Republic of Bangladesh, the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Colombia, and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which receive the majority of the world's refugees, and provide these countries with humanitarian and development support; (F) to endorse the Global Compact for Refugees, affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 17, 2018, and join the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, done in Morocco July 11, 2018; (G) to terminate harmful policies that undermine refugee law and humanitarian principles, including-- (i) the closure of the United States border to asylum seekers; (ii) the Migrant Protection Protocols, implemented beginning on January 29, 2019; and (iii) the Asylum Cooperative Agreements signed with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in 2019; (H) to adopt a robust and inclusive interpretation of United States refugee law that takes into account the changed nature of conflict and persecution and increase complementary legal pathways for protection and entry into the United States; (I) to meet the challenges of the worst refugee crisis in recorded history by-- (i) restoring United States leadership on refugee resettlement; and (ii) increasing the number of refugees welcomed to and resettled in the United States to-- (I) not fewer than 18,000 refugees during fiscal year 2020; and (II) not fewer than 95,000 refugees during fiscal year 2021; and (J) to restore the United States' longstanding tradition of resettling the most vulnerable refugees and to avoid discrimination, including discrimination based on a refugee's nationality or religious beliefs; and (5) reaffirms the goals of World Refugee Day and reiterates the strong commitment to protect the millions of refugees who live without material, social, or legal protections. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5288 | null | 1,185 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Leahy) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 674 Whereas World Refugee Day is a global event to acknowledge the courage, strength, and determination of women, men, and children who are forced to flee their homes due to persecution; Whereas, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (referred to in this preamble as ``UNHCR'') and section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)), as added by section 201 of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212), a refugee is a person who-- (1) is outside of the country of his or her nationality or habitual residence; and (2) is unable or unwilling to return because of a well- founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group; Whereas, according to the UNHCR, at the end of 2019-- (1) there were at least 79,500,000 forcibly displaced people worldwide, which is the worst displacement crisis in recorded history, including-- (A) 29,600,000 refugees; (B) more than 45,700,000 internally displaced people; and (C) 4,200,000 asylum seekers; (2) 1 person out of every 97 people worldwide was a refugee, an asylum seeker, or an internally displaced person; (3) the number of refugees under UNHCR's mandate had doubled since 2010; (4) 68 percent of the world's refugees came from only 5 countries (Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Burma); (5) 73 percent of all refugees were residing in countries adjacent to the countries from which they had fled; (6) approximately 31,000,000 of the people who had been forcibly displaced and 50 percent of all refugees were children younger than 18 years of age, millions of whom were unable to access basic services, including education; (7) approximately 11,000,000 people were newly displaced due to recent conflict or persecution, including 8,600,000 internally displaced persons and 2,400,000 refugees and asylum seekers, representing an average of at least 30,000 such people per day; (8) more than 50 percent of the population of Syria (at least 13,000,000 people) were displaced, either across the international border or within Syria, which represents the largest displacement crisis in the world today; (9) more than 1,400,000 refugees needed resettlement to a third country (an 80 percent increase since 2011), while only 107,800 refugees were resettled to a total of 26 countries; and (10) only 317,200 refugees voluntarily returned to their country or place of origin, which represents fewer than 2 percent of the 20,400,000 refugees under UNHCR's mandate; Whereas millions of refugees around the world are stateless (not recognized as nationals by any state) and therefore require a path to citizenship as part of any solution to their displacement; Whereas refugee children are 5 times more likely to be out of school than non-refugee children; Whereas refugees who are women and girls are often at greater risk of violence, human trafficking, exploitation, and gender-based violence; Whereas more than 50 percent of refugees reside in urban areas; Whereas 85 percent of refugees and asylum seekers reside in developing countries, which places enormous additional pressure on the already limited resources of those countries; Whereas the average length of time refugees remain displaced from their home country ranges between 10 and 26 years; Whereas while refugee resettlement is a critical solution for refugees, fewer than 10 percent of global resettlement needs have been met and global refugee resettlement opportunities have fallen by 50 percent since 2016; Whereas the United States resettlement program, which was established 40 years ago-- (1) is a lifesaving solution crucial to global humanitarian efforts; (2) strengthens global security; (3) advances United States foreign policy goals; (4) supports regional host countries; and (5) assists individuals and families in need; Whereas the United States annual refugee admissions ceiling fell from 85,000 in fiscal year 2016 to 18,000 in fiscal year 2020, which represents the lowest level in the history of the program; Whereas, as of June 19, 2020 (9 months into fiscal year 2020), the United States had welcomed only 7,684 refugees into the country, which is fewer than 50 percent of the President's 18,000 refugee admissions ceiling; Whereas, at this pace, the United States will not meet its fiscal year 2020 refugee admissions goal; Whereas, for fiscal year 2020, the United States, irrespective of global resettlement needs, designated new thematic and regional allocations for United States refugee admissions that prioritize-- (1) refugees fleeing persecution on account of religious persecution; (2) Iraqis; and (3) refugees from Central America; Whereas refugees are the most vetted travelers to enter the United States and are subject to extensive screening checks that may last between 18 months and 3 years, including in- person interviews, biometric data checks, and multiple interagency reviews; Whereas refugees-- (1) are major contributors to local economies; (2) pay an average of $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits; and (3) revitalize cities and towns by-- (A) offsetting population decline; and (B) boosting economic growth by opening businesses, paying taxes, and buying homes; Whereas certain industries and towns rely heavily on refugee workers to support their economic stability, and low rates of arrivals of refugees have had serious impacts on economic growth; and Whereas, during the COVID-19 pandemic-- (1) refugees, internally displaced persons, and asylum seekers, many of whom live in dangerously overcrowded settings and have inadequate access to basic services like healthcare, water, and sanitation, are especially vulnerable to the spread of the novel coronavirus; (2) well-intentioned government polices to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus may exacerbate inequalities and disproportionately impact those already suffering from conflict and persecution; (3) UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration suspended their international refugee resettlement operations for 3 months, which negatively affected at least 10,000 refugees who were already approved for travel to their respective countries of resettlement; (4) numerous countries have restricted access to asylum, including the United States, which summarily returned more than 40,000 asylum seekers gathered at the southern United States border back to Mexico and only permitted 2 individuals to remain in the United States to request humanitarian protection between March 21 and May 13, 2020; and (5) many refugees are serving as critical frontline health professionals and essential workers combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and other host countries: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) reaffirms the bipartisan commitment of the United States to promote the safety, health, and well-being of millions of refugees, including the education of refugee children and displaced persons who flee war, persecution, or torture in search of peace, hope, and freedom; (2) recognizes those individuals who have risked their lives working, either individually or for nongovernmental organizations and international agencies, such as UNHCR, to provide lifesaving assistance and protection for people displaced by conflicts around the world; (3) underscores the importance of the United States refugee resettlement program as a critical tool for the United States Government-- (A) to leverage foreign policy; (B) to strengthen national and regional security; and (C) to demonstrate international support of refugees; (4) calls upon the United States Government-- (A) to continue providing robust funding for refugee protection overseas and resettlement in the United States; (B) to uphold its international leadership role in responding to displacement crises with humanitarian assistance and protection of the most vulnerable populations; (C) to work in partnership with the international community to find solutions to existing conflicts and prevent new conflicts from beginning; (D) to ensure that-- (i) the United States refugee resettlement program is equipped to protect and support refugees; and (ii) the United States provides essential leadership to the international refugee assistance community and to local communities across the United States seeking to welcome refugees and to help them achieve the American dream; (E) to alleviate the burden placed on frontline refugee host countries, such as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the People's Republic of Bangladesh, the Republic of Uganda, the Republic of Colombia, and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which receive the majority of the world's refugees, and provide these countries with humanitarian and development support; (F) to endorse the Global Compact for Refugees, affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 17, 2018, and join the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, done in Morocco July 11, 2018; (G) to terminate harmful policies that undermine refugee law and humanitarian principles, including-- (i) the closure of the United States border to asylum seekers; (ii) the Migrant Protection Protocols, implemented beginning on January 29, 2019; and (iii) the Asylum Cooperative Agreements signed with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in 2019; (H) to adopt a robust and inclusive interpretation of United States refugee law that takes into account the changed nature of conflict and persecution and increase complementary legal pathways for protection and entry into the United States; (I) to meet the challenges of the worst refugee crisis in recorded history by-- (i) restoring United States leadership on refugee resettlement; and (ii) increasing the number of refugees welcomed to and resettled in the United States to-- (I) not fewer than 18,000 refugees during fiscal year 2020; and (II) not fewer than 95,000 refugees during fiscal year 2021; and (J) to restore the United States' longstanding tradition of resettling the most vulnerable refugees and to avoid discrimination, including discrimination based on a refugee's nationality or religious beliefs; and (5) reaffirms the goals of World Refugee Day and reiterates the strong commitment to protect the millions of refugees who live without material, social, or legal protections. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5288 | null | 1,186 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Jones, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Casey, Mr. King, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Loeffler, and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 677 Whereas the members of the airborne forces of the Armed Forces of the United States have a long and honorable history as bold and fierce warriors who, for the national security of the United States and the defense of freedom and peace, project the ground combat power of the United States by air transport to the far reaches of the battle area and to the far corners of the world; Whereas, on June 25, 1940, experiments with airborne operations by the United States began when the Army Parachute Test Platoon was first authorized by the Department of War; Whereas, in July 1940, 48 volunteers began training for the Army Parachute Test Platoon; Whereas the first official Army parachute jump took place on August 16, 1940, to test the innovative concept of inserting United States ground combat forces behind a battle line by means of a parachute; Whereas the success of the Army Parachute Test Platoon before the entry of the United States into World War II validated the airborne operational concept and led to the creation of a formidable force of airborne formations that included the 11th\\, 13th\\, 17th\\, 82nd\\, and 101st\\ Airborne Divisions; Whereas, included in those divisions, and among other separate formations, were many airborne combat, combat support, and combat service support units that served with distinction and achieved repeated success in armed hostilities during World War II; Whereas the achievements of the airborne units during World War II prompted the evolution of those units into a diversified force of parachute and air-assault units that, over the years, have fought in Korea, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf region, and Somalia, and have engaged in peacekeeping operations in Lebanon, Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo; Whereas, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the members of the United States airborne forces, including members of the XVIII Airborne Corps, the 82nd\\ Airborne Division, the 101st\\ Airborne Division (Air Assault), the 173rd\\ Airborne Brigade Combat Team, the 4th\\ Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) of the 25th\\ Infantry Division, the 75th\\ Ranger Regiment, special operations forces of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, and other units of the Armed Forces, have demonstrated bravery and honor in combat, stability, and training operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; Whereas the modern-day airborne forces also include other elite forces composed of airborne trained and qualified special operations warriors, including Army Special Forces, Marine Corps Reconnaissance units, Navy SEALs, and Air Force combat control and pararescue teams; Whereas, of the members and former members of the United States airborne forces, thousands have achieved the distinction of making combat jumps, dozens have earned the Medal of Honor, and hundreds have earned the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star, or other decorations and awards for displays of heroism, gallantry, intrepidity, and valor; Whereas the members and former members of the United States airborne forces are all members of a proud and honorable tradition that, together with the special skills and achievements of those members, distinguishes the members as intrepid combat parachutists, air assault forces, special operation forces, and, in the past, glider infantry; Whereas individuals from every State of the United States have served gallantly in the airborne forces, and each State is proud of the contributions of its paratrooper veterans during the many conflicts faced by the United States; Whereas the history and achievements of the members and former members of the United States airborne forces warrant special expressions of the gratitude of the people of the United States; and Whereas, since the airborne forces, past and present, celebrate August 16 as the anniversary of the first official jump by the Army Parachute Test Platoon, August 16 is an appropriate day to recognize as National Airborne Day: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates August 16, 2020, as ``National Airborne Day''; and (2) calls on the people of the United States to observe National Airborne Day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-08-06-pt1-PgS5290 | null | 1,187 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 4910. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy, transmitting a letter to submit proposed legislation to amend the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2012; to the Committee on Armed Services. 4911. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy, transmitting a letter to submit proposed legislation to authorize the National Nuclear Security Administration to dispose of certain sealed sources; to the Committee on Armed Services. 4912. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Lebanon that was declared in Executive Order 13441 of August 1, 2007, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 4913. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption that was declared in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 4914. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 4915. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 4916. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notice of a change in previously submitted reported information, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 4917. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 4918. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting the Commission's Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress summarizing activities from October 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 4919. A letter from the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. House of Representatives, transmitting the final report on the Audit of Public Cloud Services (Report No. 20-CAO-03); to the Committee on House Administration. 4920. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075; Public Law 88-623, Sec. 1 (as amended by Public Law 103-394, Sec. 104(f)); (108 Stat. 4110) (H. Doc. No. 116--143); to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed. 4921. A letter from the President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, transmitting the Council's 2019 annual independent audit report, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 10101(b)(1) and 150909; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 4922. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting an Amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence that has been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072 (H. Doc. No. 116--144); to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed. 4923. A letter from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting an Amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has been adopted by the Supreme Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072 (H. Doc. No. 116--145); to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed. 4924. A letter from the Clerk, Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, transmitting Annual compilation of financial disclosure statements filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by members of the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics, pursuant to Clause 3 of House Rule XXVI (H. Doc. No. 116--146); to the Committee on Ethics and ordered to be printed. 4925. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's comprehensive report of actions taken from 2012-2018 to conclude new cultural property agreements with Belize, Bulgaria, Egypt, and Libya, and to extend agreements with Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua, and Peru, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(g)(1); Public Law 97-446, Sec. 303(g)(1); (96 Stat. 2354); to the Committee on Ways and Means. 4926. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's comprehensive report of actions taken from 2012-2018 to conclude new cultural property agreements with Belize, Bulgaria, Egypt, and Libya, and to extend agreements with Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Mali, Nicaragua, and Peru, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(g)(1); Public Law 97-446, Sec. 303(g)(1); (96 Stat. 2354); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-08-07-pt1-PgH4223-2 | null | 1,188 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, over the weekend, the United Statesachieved an ignominious milestone. Five million Americans are confirmed to have contracted COVID-19--by far, the most in the world. Our country went from 4 million Americans having had the disease to 5 million in 17 days--only 17 days. One million Americans were infected in just 17 days. We have lost American businesses, American wealth, and an unbearable number of American lives--a number that will inevitably increase as the number of infections continues to rise. The brutal economic effect of the pandemic has spared no corner of our country. We are living through the greatest economic crisis since the Depression and the greatest health crisis since the Spanish flu in 1918. So it should not be hard to convince Republicans in the Senate and the White House to provide urgent and necessary relief to the American people. The $3.4 million in the Heroes Act was based on the country's needs, which is so large and so diverse. It is not a political position; it is what our country needs--its schools, its businesses, its renters, its homeowners, its essential workers, its post office, its elections, State and local governments, our healthcare system. Leader McConnell doesn't seem to understand this. He sees everything through a political lens. But we Democrats are looking at the real needs of people. They are large, and they come from many different places. That is why we called for a large bill because it was needed because the American people demanded it. At this point, the American people are on our side. By survey data, two-thirds support the $3.4 billion Democratic plan, not the skimpy Republican plan that doesn't deal with people's needs. But at the end of last week, after days of arduous negotiations, Speaker Pelosi and I continued to run into Republican intransigence. They didn't see people's needs the way we did. They didn't see the depth and breadth of this crisis. So, like in any normal negotiation, we offered to move in their direction if they would move in ours. Let's meet in the middle, we said--in the middle. That is how negotiations occur. That is how you get something done. The White House said no. It was difficult for us to offer that compromise. The Democratic position is that we want to devote enough resources to defeat the virus and see the American people through this crisis. The Republican position is to give much less than what is needed. Democrats don't want to leave large portions of the country and the economy to fend for itself, but the reason we want to meet in the middle is that getting major legislation through Congress is the only way to achieve something significant for the American people. Rather than compromise, our Republican counterparts said: ``Take a hike.'' Quite literally, they said virtually this in the room: No, it is going to be our way or no way. We are not going to meet you in the middle. Why? Why wouldn't they, when the needs are so great, when there are so many people suffering and so many more who will suffer if we don't act? It is because this Republican Party is so tied in a knot that it can't agree to anything. It can only spute the same political speech every day. Republican Leader McConnell has admitted that 20 Republican Senators will not vote for any more relief for the American people. The Senate bill that the Republican leader keeps referring to lacks the support of Senate Republicans. He can't bring it to the floor because so many of them will vote against it. The President himself called the Republican bill ``semi-irrelevant''--one of the few things he said about this crisis that had some truth to it. It was not some possibility that Democrats blocked. Senate Republicans spiked it the moment it came out. Why? Maybe they thought that these Executive orders would be a way out. They are so tied in a knot they can't legislate or even bring themselves to join us in the middle. They were clinging to the hope that the President could do something on his own through Executives orders, but as we have seen, Executives orders in general aren't going to get the job done, especially the incompetent ones issued over the weekend. President Trump's recent Executive orders are so unserious, in terms of meeting the large needs of America, as to be pathetic. Take, for example, the payroll tax deferral. It makes no sense. Even Republican Members of Congress and, according to reports some members of the administration, opposed a payroll tax deferral because it would do next to nothing to help our workers or the economy. Remember, the President did not cancel payroll taxes--he can't--he just deferred them. Most employers will continue to withhold the payroll tax so that their employees will not be hit with a very large tax bill in December when the deferral expires. ADP, a nonpolitical payroll processing company, said: It ``may take months to implement'' the President's new policy. It feels like forever ago, but Candidate Trump promised he was different from Republicans and would never touch Social Security or Medicare. Well, guess what. Deferring the payroll tax is a backdoor way of weakening Social Security and Medicare. In case the President's intentions weren't clear, he said that after the election he may permanently cut the payroll tax, which would deplete the trust funds and destroy Social Security and Medicare as we know it. If you are a senior or have paid into Social Security or Medicare and are waiting for it, watch out--watch out. Seniors throughout the decades, since we have had Social Security, have jealously regarded the trust fund, and now Donald Trump says: Well, maybe we should get rid of it because we should defer; we should get rid of the payroll tax altogether. This Executive order is an example of many false promises that Donald Trump has made and, just as importantly, it is so put together with spit and glue that in all likelihood many States will not implement it at all--some have said so. And many more, even if they want to implement it, will take months--several months--while people will not get their unemployment benefits. The easiest thing to do for the good of the economy, for keeping millions out of poverty, which the President's pandemic unemployment insurance has done, is simply to renew the existing unemployment insurance. But because of the hard right, because so many Republicans don't want to spend the money, even for people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, it doesn't happen. The idea that the American worker is looking for an out is demeaning to the American worker, Leader McConnell. Americans want to work. There is pride in work. The overwhelming majority of Americans, if given the choice of a job or unemployment insurance for a period of time, even if that unemployment insurance is not exactly what they got paid, will take the job. We know that. America believes in the work ethic. So how demeaning to the American worker to say they are looking for a way out; that they are looking for a way to ``skeeve'' the system. That is not the American worker I know. That is not the New York worker I know. But, of course, when unemployment is over 10 percent, you can be looking for a job, but you may not get one. That is the reason so many people are on pandemic unemployment insurance. The President's plan there was nothing short of a disaster in terms of its inability to be implemented, its effect on Social Security and Medicare, and the demeaning way in which it looks at the American worker. The President's Executive orders, therefore, are a disaster. The President's Executive order on evictions is the best example of all sizzle and no steak. It does not even guarantee a moratorium on evictions. It merely instructs Federal Agencies to ``review'' and ``consider'' whether it is appropriate to halt evictions, let alone people who have fallen behind on their rent. Three of the things the President has done don't work. The deferral of the payroll tax hurts Social Security and does not pump money into the economy. Cutting the unemployment insurance will take weeks and months to implement and hurts American workers and demeans them. The Executive order on evictions says: Let's consider something. We know what that means in jargon around here: Let's not do it. Let's just talk about it. President Trump's Executive orders are hardly worth the paper they areprinted on. You don't have to take my word for it. Go ask Republican Senators from South Carolina and Nebraska who aren't too thrilled with it either. Of course, the biggest problem with these Executive orders is not what they do but what they don't and can't do. The orders don't address testing, tracing, and treatment of COVID-19--desperately needed to curb the health crisis which, in turn, is hurting the economy so badly. The orders leave out money to safely reopen our schools and provide the PPE and other help to keep the kids, teachers, and staff safe. The orders will not give food assistance to hungry kids and families. The orders will not aid State and local governments, firefighters, sanitation workers, bus drivers, healthcare workers. All the people who keep our communities running could lose their jobs. The orders leave out funds to ensure elections can be carried out safely amid COVID-19, and the orders do nothing to keep our post offices open and make sure our elections are conducted in a safe and sound manner during this COVID crisis. The fact is, we are facing an unprecedented crisis. The government is going to have to commit resources to fight this disease and the economic devastation it has wrought. Executive orders cannot do that and, therefore, will always be insufficient, especially those crafted in such a poor way as these. The only way to crush the virus and truly protect American working families is to pass a comprehensive bill in Congress that is equal to the challenges facing our country. Democrats remain ready to return to the table. We need our Republicans to join us there and meet us halfway and work together to deliver immediate relief to the American people. We are ready as soon as our Republican colleagues have come off this view that it is their way or no way and meet us in the middle. Now, before I yield the floor, I want to take a step back and talk about the core problem in our negotiations over the past few weeks. President Trump and the Republican Party--certainly in the Senate--are not alive to the suffering of the American people. The response from the White House to the greatest domestic challenge of the 21st century can be summed up in five words issued by President Trump in an interview last week: ``It is what it is.'' President Trump was challenged to defend his claim that COVID-19 is under control. ``How?'' he was asked. ``A thousand Americans are dying a day.'' President Trump's response: ``It is what it is.'' ``It is what it is.'' That is how the President of the United States of America responds to the harrowing fact that more than 1,000 Americans are dying every single day from a virus his administration has failed to contain--not a morsel of empathy, not an ounce of sorrow, not a shred of remorse for the many mistakes his administration has made. The President says: ``It is what it is.'' What a shocking admission of Presidential failure. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful Nation on Earth. Yet countries around the world manage to test their citizens, isolate cases, stop the spread of the disease--countries with bigger populations than ours and countries with a mere fraction of our resources and know-how. President Trump's response to this crisis is a national and an international embarrassment. The President says: ``It is what it is.'' President Trump is not the only one who dismisses the gravity of COVID-19. The lack of empathy and understanding starts at the top, but it goes all the way down. The President's Chief of Staff said COVID-19 isn't such a big deal for schoolchildren compared to the flu. Leader McConnell put the Senate on ice for 4 months in the middle of a global pandemic because his party ``didn't feel the urgency of acting''--his words. Now, by the leader's own admission, more than a third of the Senate Republican caucus doesn't want to vote for anything--anything--to help the American people. The economy is failing. Small businesses are closing. State and local governments are cutting essential services. Americans can't pay the rent and will be thrown out of their homes. Families can't afford to feed their children. Essential workers don't have PPE. We are sending our kids back to school without a plan. The number of Americans we are testing is going down. The disease is ravaging our nursing homes. Americans are dying--so many in so short a time that funeral homes and morgues are storing the dead in refrigerated 18-wheelers. Yet the President says: ``It is what it is.'' The President, his aides, his party, and Congress are not even awake to what is happening in this country. That is the reason Senate Republicans delayed for 4 long months, and that is the reason we have been unable to find agreement with the White House. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-10-pt1-PgS5360-5 | null | 1,189 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, over the weekend, the United Statesachieved an ignominious milestone. Five million Americans are confirmed to have contracted COVID-19--by far, the most in the world. Our country went from 4 million Americans having had the disease to 5 million in 17 days--only 17 days. One million Americans were infected in just 17 days. We have lost American businesses, American wealth, and an unbearable number of American lives--a number that will inevitably increase as the number of infections continues to rise. The brutal economic effect of the pandemic has spared no corner of our country. We are living through the greatest economic crisis since the Depression and the greatest health crisis since the Spanish flu in 1918. So it should not be hard to convince Republicans in the Senate and the White House to provide urgent and necessary relief to the American people. The $3.4 million in the Heroes Act was based on the country's needs, which is so large and so diverse. It is not a political position; it is what our country needs--its schools, its businesses, its renters, its homeowners, its essential workers, its post office, its elections, State and local governments, our healthcare system. Leader McConnell doesn't seem to understand this. He sees everything through a political lens. But we Democrats are looking at the real needs of people. They are large, and they come from many different places. That is why we called for a large bill because it was needed because the American people demanded it. At this point, the American people are on our side. By survey data, two-thirds support the $3.4 billion Democratic plan, not the skimpy Republican plan that doesn't deal with people's needs. But at the end of last week, after days of arduous negotiations, Speaker Pelosi and I continued to run into Republican intransigence. They didn't see people's needs the way we did. They didn't see the depth and breadth of this crisis. So, like in any normal negotiation, we offered to move in their direction if they would move in ours. Let's meet in the middle, we said--in the middle. That is how negotiations occur. That is how you get something done. The White House said no. It was difficult for us to offer that compromise. The Democratic position is that we want to devote enough resources to defeat the virus and see the American people through this crisis. The Republican position is to give much less than what is needed. Democrats don't want to leave large portions of the country and the economy to fend for itself, but the reason we want to meet in the middle is that getting major legislation through Congress is the only way to achieve something significant for the American people. Rather than compromise, our Republican counterparts said: ``Take a hike.'' Quite literally, they said virtually this in the room: No, it is going to be our way or no way. We are not going to meet you in the middle. Why? Why wouldn't they, when the needs are so great, when there are so many people suffering and so many more who will suffer if we don't act? It is because this Republican Party is so tied in a knot that it can't agree to anything. It can only spute the same political speech every day. Republican Leader McConnell has admitted that 20 Republican Senators will not vote for any more relief for the American people. The Senate bill that the Republican leader keeps referring to lacks the support of Senate Republicans. He can't bring it to the floor because so many of them will vote against it. The President himself called the Republican bill ``semi-irrelevant''--one of the few things he said about this crisis that had some truth to it. It was not some possibility that Democrats blocked. Senate Republicans spiked it the moment it came out. Why? Maybe they thought that these Executive orders would be a way out. They are so tied in a knot they can't legislate or even bring themselves to join us in the middle. They were clinging to the hope that the President could do something on his own through Executives orders, but as we have seen, Executives orders in general aren't going to get the job done, especially the incompetent ones issued over the weekend. President Trump's recent Executive orders are so unserious, in terms of meeting the large needs of America, as to be pathetic. Take, for example, the payroll tax deferral. It makes no sense. Even Republican Members of Congress and, according to reports some members of the administration, opposed a payroll tax deferral because it would do next to nothing to help our workers or the economy. Remember, the President did not cancel payroll taxes--he can't--he just deferred them. Most employers will continue to withhold the payroll tax so that their employees will not be hit with a very large tax bill in December when the deferral expires. ADP, a nonpolitical payroll processing company, said: It ``may take months to implement'' the President's new policy. It feels like forever ago, but Candidate Trump promised he was different from Republicans and would never touch Social Security or Medicare. Well, guess what. Deferring the payroll tax is a backdoor way of weakening Social Security and Medicare. In case the President's intentions weren't clear, he said that after the election he may permanently cut the payroll tax, which would deplete the trust funds and destroy Social Security and Medicare as we know it. If you are a senior or have paid into Social Security or Medicare and are waiting for it, watch out--watch out. Seniors throughout the decades, since we have had Social Security, have jealously regarded the trust fund, and now Donald Trump says: Well, maybe we should get rid of it because we should defer; we should get rid of the payroll tax altogether. This Executive order is an example of many false promises that Donald Trump has made and, just as importantly, it is so put together with spit and glue that in all likelihood many States will not implement it at all--some have said so. And many more, even if they want to implement it, will take months--several months--while people will not get their unemployment benefits. The easiest thing to do for the good of the economy, for keeping millions out of poverty, which the President's pandemic unemployment insurance has done, is simply to renew the existing unemployment insurance. But because of the hard right, because so many Republicans don't want to spend the money, even for people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, it doesn't happen. The idea that the American worker is looking for an out is demeaning to the American worker, Leader McConnell. Americans want to work. There is pride in work. The overwhelming majority of Americans, if given the choice of a job or unemployment insurance for a period of time, even if that unemployment insurance is not exactly what they got paid, will take the job. We know that. America believes in the work ethic. So how demeaning to the American worker to say they are looking for a way out; that they are looking for a way to ``skeeve'' the system. That is not the American worker I know. That is not the New York worker I know. But, of course, when unemployment is over 10 percent, you can be looking for a job, but you may not get one. That is the reason so many people are on pandemic unemployment insurance. The President's plan there was nothing short of a disaster in terms of its inability to be implemented, its effect on Social Security and Medicare, and the demeaning way in which it looks at the American worker. The President's Executive orders, therefore, are a disaster. The President's Executive order on evictions is the best example of all sizzle and no steak. It does not even guarantee a moratorium on evictions. It merely instructs Federal Agencies to ``review'' and ``consider'' whether it is appropriate to halt evictions, let alone people who have fallen behind on their rent. Three of the things the President has done don't work. The deferral of the payroll tax hurts Social Security and does not pump money into the economy. Cutting the unemployment insurance will take weeks and months to implement and hurts American workers and demeans them. The Executive order on evictions says: Let's consider something. We know what that means in jargon around here: Let's not do it. Let's just talk about it. President Trump's Executive orders are hardly worth the paper they areprinted on. You don't have to take my word for it. Go ask Republican Senators from South Carolina and Nebraska who aren't too thrilled with it either. Of course, the biggest problem with these Executive orders is not what they do but what they don't and can't do. The orders don't address testing, tracing, and treatment of COVID-19--desperately needed to curb the health crisis which, in turn, is hurting the economy so badly. The orders leave out money to safely reopen our schools and provide the PPE and other help to keep the kids, teachers, and staff safe. The orders will not give food assistance to hungry kids and families. The orders will not aid State and local governments, firefighters, sanitation workers, bus drivers, healthcare workers. All the people who keep our communities running could lose their jobs. The orders leave out funds to ensure elections can be carried out safely amid COVID-19, and the orders do nothing to keep our post offices open and make sure our elections are conducted in a safe and sound manner during this COVID crisis. The fact is, we are facing an unprecedented crisis. The government is going to have to commit resources to fight this disease and the economic devastation it has wrought. Executive orders cannot do that and, therefore, will always be insufficient, especially those crafted in such a poor way as these. The only way to crush the virus and truly protect American working families is to pass a comprehensive bill in Congress that is equal to the challenges facing our country. Democrats remain ready to return to the table. We need our Republicans to join us there and meet us halfway and work together to deliver immediate relief to the American people. We are ready as soon as our Republican colleagues have come off this view that it is their way or no way and meet us in the middle. Now, before I yield the floor, I want to take a step back and talk about the core problem in our negotiations over the past few weeks. President Trump and the Republican Party--certainly in the Senate--are not alive to the suffering of the American people. The response from the White House to the greatest domestic challenge of the 21st century can be summed up in five words issued by President Trump in an interview last week: ``It is what it is.'' President Trump was challenged to defend his claim that COVID-19 is under control. ``How?'' he was asked. ``A thousand Americans are dying a day.'' President Trump's response: ``It is what it is.'' ``It is what it is.'' That is how the President of the United States of America responds to the harrowing fact that more than 1,000 Americans are dying every single day from a virus his administration has failed to contain--not a morsel of empathy, not an ounce of sorrow, not a shred of remorse for the many mistakes his administration has made. The President says: ``It is what it is.'' What a shocking admission of Presidential failure. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful Nation on Earth. Yet countries around the world manage to test their citizens, isolate cases, stop the spread of the disease--countries with bigger populations than ours and countries with a mere fraction of our resources and know-how. President Trump's response to this crisis is a national and an international embarrassment. The President says: ``It is what it is.'' President Trump is not the only one who dismisses the gravity of COVID-19. The lack of empathy and understanding starts at the top, but it goes all the way down. The President's Chief of Staff said COVID-19 isn't such a big deal for schoolchildren compared to the flu. Leader McConnell put the Senate on ice for 4 months in the middle of a global pandemic because his party ``didn't feel the urgency of acting''--his words. Now, by the leader's own admission, more than a third of the Senate Republican caucus doesn't want to vote for anything--anything--to help the American people. The economy is failing. Small businesses are closing. State and local governments are cutting essential services. Americans can't pay the rent and will be thrown out of their homes. Families can't afford to feed their children. Essential workers don't have PPE. We are sending our kids back to school without a plan. The number of Americans we are testing is going down. The disease is ravaging our nursing homes. Americans are dying--so many in so short a time that funeral homes and morgues are storing the dead in refrigerated 18-wheelers. Yet the President says: ``It is what it is.'' The President, his aides, his party, and Congress are not even awake to what is happening in this country. That is the reason Senate Republicans delayed for 4 long months, and that is the reason we have been unable to find agreement with the White House. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-08-10-pt1-PgS5360-5 | null | 1,190 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on a totally different matter, this weekend brought more unsettling news in the ongoing struggle for Hong Kong to preserve any shred of its civil liberties and self-governance. One of the region's most prominent pro-democracy advocates, Jimmy Lai, was arrested yesterday for alleged violations of the so-called national security law imposed by Beijing. Last year, after a historic election that saw millions flock to the polls to overwhelmingly reject President Xi's preferred candidates, the Chinese Communist Party moved quickly to choke Hongkongers' free expression. Mr. Lai has been at the vanguard of the vibrant Hong Kong-based media and publishing world. Jimmy Lai was arrested for an alleged violation of the so-called national security law imposed by Beijing. He has devoted much of his life to advancing precisely--precisely the sort of values that the CCP finds most repulsive: freedom of thought and freedom of speech. The Senate, the country, and freedom-loving nations across the world stand with Mr. Lai and with all the peaceful demonstrators who have met the business end of the CCP's repression. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-10-pt1-PgS5360 | null | 1,191 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank you. I want to thank the minority leader--the Democratic leader, Mr. Schumer--for his remarks. There are not many of us around here in the Senate today. It is pretty quiet. If you walk through the halls, there is virtually nobody around. That is what it was like last Thursday afternoon. That is what it was like here in the Senate on Friday and again on Saturday and again on Sunday. Here we are again on Monday, and this Senate is virtually a ghost town--a few people here, but for the most part, everybody was sent home by the majority leader, by Senator McConnell. He told Senators: Go home until further notice. Go home. We are going to put the Senate on standby. No need to be here doing the people's business. Well, the coronavirus is not on standby. The coronavirus is very much alive and well and spreading throughout the country--more severely in some parts than others but spreading throughout the country--and with it has come the spread of economic pain and economic harm. So COVID-19 is not on standby, and neither is the economic pain and fallout that it has caused. But here in the U.S. Senate, the Republican leader, the majority leader, has said: Go home and be on standby. That is not leadership at any time. It is certainly not the kind of leadership that the American people need and should expect during a global pandemic and recession-era unemployment levels. So why did the majority leader tell people to just go home and be on standby? It is because he wanted the Trump administration to negotiate an agreement. Last I checked, the U.S. Senate was a separate branch of government with its own responsibilities. Yet we have the Republican leader, who runs the U.S. Senate from the floor, telling people to go home and be on standby because he wants the President of the United States, the Trump administration, to negotiate an agreement and then come back to us. In other words, the Republican leader wants to contract out his responsibilities and the responsibilities of the U.S. Senate to the executive branch. If you look at the U.S. Constitution, there are three separate branches of government. Yet the Republican leader has decided to give his proxy to the President of the United States, to the executive branch, rather than stay here in the U.S. Senate and do our work. Now, why is that? Why is it that the majority leader has decided to contract out his responsibilities and those of the Senate to the executive branch of government? Well, we don't have to guess because Mr. McConnell has told us. He told PBS NewsHour: ``About 20 of my Members think that we have already done enough.'' Let me read that again. This is from the Republican leader: ``About 20 of my Members think that we have already done enough.'' He is obviously referring to Republican Members of the Senate caucus. These are Members of the Senate Republican caucus. They think all is well; we have done enough; we don't need to do any more to expand access to testing, don't need to expand access to personal protective equipment, don't need to do anything to help our schools. We have done enough. We don't need to do anything more on unemployment insurance, where the additional $600 a week has expired. Senator McConnell said that 20 of his Members thought they have already done enough. The eviction moratorium is coming to an end, both nationally and in many States, but 20Members of the Senate Republican caucus, their leader says they have done enough. Here is what Senator Lindsey Graham said on FOX: ``I think, if Mitch can get one-half of the conference, that would be quite an accomplishment''--referring to the Republican conference. So Senator Graham of South Carolina is saying that if Mitch McConnell--if Mr. McConnell, the Republican leader, can get half the Members of the Republican Senate caucus to do anything, that would be quite an accomplishment. I want all of us to think about what that means. What it means is that many of our colleagues are happy to have packed up and gone home and that we are not doing anything because they don't think we need to be doing anything. That is really why we are not here. That is also why you saw the Trump administration emissaries, Secretary Mnuchin and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, walk away from the negotiating table. They understood that, if they reached what was truly a compromise, a principal compromise, Senator Graham said that half the Republican caucus would oppose it because they would oppose anything. So that is why you had the Trump administration walk away from the negotiating table and refuse to come to a sensible agreement. What did we get instead? Because they walked away from an agreement, we had the President of the United States throw together a press conference at his golf club in New Jersey. He put the American flags up at his golf club, put out a podium with the Presidential seal, invited club members to witness the signing of an Executive order and some memos. Here is the really sad truth about the matter: It was mostly show rather than real substance. It was something that we would come to expect from somebody who is really good at reality TV but somebody who did not understand the painful realities being experienced by Americans throughout this country during this health pandemic and the economic pandemic. I say that because, if you begin to look at what the President actually signed, it is both inadequate and also unworkable in almost all its parts. Let's put aside for now the question of whether or not the President had the legal authority to do what he did because, clearly, in some parts of his Executive order and his memos, he does not have the constitutional authority to do that. We have heard that from some of the Senate Republican Members already. But let's set that aside and just see whether it will actually deliver meaningful relief to Americans or whether it is more like the degree that was given to folks who attended so-called Trump University, which turned out to be a fraud and is now shuttered. Let's take a look at what the President did. First, with respect to extending the $600 a week of unemployment insurance benefits--and let's remember the starting point for this is that neither the President of the United States, Donald Trump, nor the Republican Senate want to extend the $600-a-week unemployment compensation. They say it is too much for Americans who are out of work, through no fault of their own, because of this pandemic and even though there are poor people looking for work right now in America for every job that is available. I hear from constituents every day--I read some of their stories last Thursday on the floor of the Senate--people who badly want to get back to work, but their former job is gone, and there is no new job to replace it, and they need that additional $600 a week to make ends meet. In fact, I want to read to the Senate some additional letters I received from constituents on this point: Please act to extend the $600-a-week unemployment enhancement. I am requesting it both in my name and on behalf of my wife. We both lost our jobs. And the additional $600 is significantly helping keep us afloat and purchase the needs of life. My job was supposed to restart in late June, but the owner has pushed it back to November, December, to be determined. My wife was put on furlough and told the company hoped to bring everybody back but has heard nothing yet. Without the additional $600, a time will come in the next few months when we will be unable to pay our bills. Here is a note I received from another constituent: Respectfully, Senator Chris Van Hollen, I would like to write to you about the $600 unemployment. I understand that the other party is fighting you all the way. This is painful because I am a diabetic, and, at this point, because that benefit was taken away, I have to choose between paying my bills or my insulin. I applied sometime in June, since I was thinking I would be back to work. Gone are my savings to pay rent, car loan, insurance, and other bills. From this week on, because of losing the $600, I will have to stop paying bills so I can pay for my insulin. I never thought that I would be in a situation like this in America, where if you work hard, pay your taxes--to be able to have a roof over your head, health insurance, and human dignity. I, like I am sure many of my colleagues, have received hundreds--hundreds of notes like that from our constituents, people who will not be able to make ends meet without the additional $600 a week, but the President doesn't want to continue that, nor do Senate Republicans. And so what did the President say up in New Jersey? He came up with this plan that, unfortunately, will not deliver. Essentially, what he said was: Take the funds that were provided in the CARES Act to the States--the U.S. Congress provided about $150 billion to States to help during the early stages of this pandemic, both to help purchase things like PPE and also to address the economic fallout. I should remind my colleagues that Senator McConnell was dead against that, even in the earlier version. If you go back and look at the debate in the Record, you will find that he was dead set against providing any funds to State and local governments. That was the result of a compromise that he succeeded in pushing in those negotiations. But in these most recent negotiations--these most recent negotiations--both the White House and, again, Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans took the position of no funds for State and local governments. I remember a few months back when asked, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said: Let them go bankrupt. Let them go bankrupt. Well, there is a productive solution. He may have walked those comments back a little bit, but he did not walk back his opposition to any funds for State and local governments. What did the President say in New Jersey the other day? OK, States, take the earlier emergency funds that Congress provided and use those as a 25-percent match to the 300 Federal dollars so we can provide $400 per week in additional employment insurance. Here is the problem with that. We provided that $150 billion emergency assistance to the States because of the emergencies they were facing then and continue to face because they are facing both increased costs with respect to helping frontline healthcare providers and hospitals and providing them with personal protective equipment The Federal Government has been pretty much AWOL when it comes to testing. The President said to the States, you-all set up testing regimes. And so they are using some of those funds we provided for that. They are using those funds to try to open schools safely or help provide distance learning when schools can't be open safely. Many of the States--especially those hardest hit--have already allocated the great majority, if not all, of those funds. And now the President is saying: Oh, well, use those funds that we provided to you earlier for this other purpose. No. 1, those States and other areas have already allocated most of those funds. I noticed that if you look at the Treasury tables, the data they released, it was for the end of June, and that money was already spent--not today. The money was already allocated. So, first of all, for many States, that money is already spoken for, but let's say in some cases there is some money left over. What is the President of the United States saying? He is saying he wants to take from one American to give to another one. The President wants to pit these needs against oneanother. He wants to rob constituent Peter to pay constituent Paul. Those moneys went to the States. Those moneys went to States to pay for real needs. OK, Governor; OK, State legislature, you are going to have to fire that emergency responder who will now both be out of a job and unable to provide emergency assistance so that you can give a $100 match to help somebody who has lost their job a little bit more. That is what the President is saying to those States that do have something leftover. We don't even know how much that is. If you think about it, that is not how a country should be responding in the middle of a pandemic. Governors, you have to hurt that person to help that one. That is what the plan of the President of the United States says, and that is when it is working the way he wants it. That is if it works as advertised. From the President's perspective, best case scenario, when this plan is working, he is asking Governors to take from one set of constituents of Americans who are hurting badly, could lose a job--they need the PPE; they need testing; they need to open the schools, but take it from over there, and put it over here. That is what the President is saying. That is assuming it works at all, whether that money is available and whether there is a way you can actually do all of this through what is a pretty cumbersome administrative process. I don't know if any of my colleagues saw the Sunday shows in realtime or reruns or read about them, but here is what Larry Kudlow was asked on the CNN ``Morning Show'' by Dana Bash, simple question: Have you checked with the States? How many of the 50 States and DC and other territories say that they are going to be able to pony up $100 a week per unemployed citizen? Larry Kudlow: Good question. Good question. We will probably find that out today or tomorrow as we make our canvas. If there wasn't another sign that what happened in New Jersey was a total show, this tells it all. They laid out a plan asking States that have run out of money, but if they have some money, to rob Peter to pay Paul, but they didn't even ask the States if it was doable. They didn't even ask the States if it was doable. That is a reflection of this entire plan. Let's look at what the President said about the second piece--payroll tax deferral. A lot of Americans might have heard that and thought: I am an employee. I am working, and now the portion of my check that is withheld for payroll taxes--like Social Security--I am not going to have to pay that anymore, and that will be money in my pocket. That is not what it did. What it did was say to these people who are working--by the way, as we all know, deducting payroll taxes from paychecks doesn't help the 30 million who don't have a job. They are not getting a paycheck. They have nothing to deduct something from. People who are working and thought this was going to be extra money that they can pocket forever, that is not the case. What the President was saying is that we will withhold those payroll taxes from your paychecks through the end of the year, but it is going to come due and owing. These are people who are working. These are people who have their jobs. Maybe they want to defer that for a little while or not, but at the end of the day, they are going to have to pay it back to Uncle Sam. Here is the other problem. Employers are the ones who are legally responsible for the delivery of those payroll taxes, not just for the employer but for the employee as well. They are going to have to take the risk that if one of their employees doesn't want their Social Security taxes paid--in other words, they want them withheld--ultimately, they will be paid back. But what we are hearing from lots of employers is they can't guarantee that. First of all, what if that employee leaves? How am I going to repay that portion of the payroll taxes? Here is another example of something that may have sounded good to some people when they heard it, but it really is a shell game in the first instance and, in many ways, a sham. By the way, whether it is a deferral or if it is ultimately forgiven--that would require an act of Congress--then, the Social Security system takes a hit. Then the Social Security system takes a hit unless you refund it, but that is not in the President's plan. The President's memo doesn't talk about refunding it if, in fact, it were ever forgiven, which he can't do either. Let's look at the eviction moratorium. That is a real mirage. I urge my colleagues just to read the Executive order. The Executive order tells Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control to ``consider'' whether an extended eviction moratorium is reasonably necessary to protect the public health. He is asking two Federal agencies to consider a question he posed to them. I imagine a lot of people who may have watched the President with the American flags up in his country club thought: Wow, the President just said that no one can get evicted. That is not what he said at all. It was a sham. He said HHS and CDC should ``consider'' whether an extended eviction moratorium is reasonably necessary to protect the public health. Then he asked HUD and Treasury to look around in their bank accounts to see if they have money to help people who might be evicted. Do you know the way to help people who may be evicted? First of all, don't let them be evicted in the first place, and help them and the landlords by passing the rental assistance provision that is in the Heroes Act that passed the House. Whether you look at the unemployment insurance provision or the payroll tax provision or the so-called eviction moratorium provision, this really is show and not substance. I am only talking about what the President put into the plan, not everything that got left out--everything that got left out that is in the Heroes Act: helping people go back to schools safely; helping to expand realtime testing so that we can open our economy and schools safely; food assistance for those who are struggling; rental assistance; money for State and local government, whose needs have only risen dramatically since the last down payment that Congress passed in the CARES Act. Now the President is saying that we want you to go poach that fund and hurt people by taking things away from them in order to help other Americans. Those are some of the things that were totally left out of here. I have often heard, when talking about State and local governments, that the President tweets all the time that this is just a question of blue States wanting to be bailed out for bad economic decisions or bad budget problems they had and that red States are just doing great. Anybody who looks at the State financial affairs knows that is not true. Take a look at my State of Maryland. Most people would consider us a blue State. We have the AAA bond rating. The last I checked, the State of Kentucky was a single A bond rating. This isn't a question of whether we want to help States that somehow had difficult financial situations before the coronavirus hit. The reality is that right now this is not a red State or blue State issue. This is an American issue. We all know that the virus has spread throughout the country. Nobody can totally escape it. It doesn't matter whether you are a red State or a blue State. This is a red, white, and blue moment, and we need to treat it as a national effort, not a State by State effort but one also where the Federal Government plays a very important role and is not AWOL in the middle of a pandemic, and not playing politics in the middle of a pandemic. Listen to the healthcare experts about whether or not to wear a mask instead of making that a political statement that puts people at greater risk who follow the President's political advice rather than the healthcare advice of the healthcare experts. I hope we will get back to the negotiating table. But to do that, the President has to be serious about reaching a conclusion, and he is going to need help from the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and from that more than half of the Senate Republican conference that both Senator McConnell and Senator Graham say do not want to do anything at all. Let me clarify that. The Republican leader said 20 Members don't want to do anything atall, and it was Senator Graham who said about half. If that is the case, our country is in even bigger trouble than we might have thought because there is a failure to recognize the immediacy of the need and the depth of the problem that we face. Let's get back to the negotiating table. I remember some of the President's top priorities when he first presented his plan. He wanted that tax break for three-martini lunches for business executives--no food assistance for needy families but yes to tax breaks for three-martini lunches. That is what the President said. I think we were all surprised to see he wanted $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion to build a new FBI headquarters at its current site, rather than follow through with the original plan, which was to move that headquarters to a suburban campus for security needs and to consolidate. But I guess if you rebuild it at its current site, there really is no risk that someone will buy that land and end up building a hotel that competes with the nearby Trump hotel. That was part of the President's set of priorities in the middle of an emergency. American people need to understand that. Let's get back to the negotiating table. What the President did was show and not substance. We need to work together in order to do something meaningful. Don't walk away. Come on back and let's work. And, finally, when I say come on back--again, I will end where I started. It is awfully quiet around here. We are in the middle of a pandemic. The virus hasn't taken a vacation. The virus hasn't taken any time off. The economic harm isn't taking a vacation or any time off. Yet here we are in the Senate, all quiet. Talks break down with the administration. We are a separate branch of government under the Constitution of the United States. Let's get back here and do our job for the American people. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-10-pt1-PgS5362 | null | 1,192 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank you. I want to thank the minority leader--the Democratic leader, Mr. Schumer--for his remarks. There are not many of us around here in the Senate today. It is pretty quiet. If you walk through the halls, there is virtually nobody around. That is what it was like last Thursday afternoon. That is what it was like here in the Senate on Friday and again on Saturday and again on Sunday. Here we are again on Monday, and this Senate is virtually a ghost town--a few people here, but for the most part, everybody was sent home by the majority leader, by Senator McConnell. He told Senators: Go home until further notice. Go home. We are going to put the Senate on standby. No need to be here doing the people's business. Well, the coronavirus is not on standby. The coronavirus is very much alive and well and spreading throughout the country--more severely in some parts than others but spreading throughout the country--and with it has come the spread of economic pain and economic harm. So COVID-19 is not on standby, and neither is the economic pain and fallout that it has caused. But here in the U.S. Senate, the Republican leader, the majority leader, has said: Go home and be on standby. That is not leadership at any time. It is certainly not the kind of leadership that the American people need and should expect during a global pandemic and recession-era unemployment levels. So why did the majority leader tell people to just go home and be on standby? It is because he wanted the Trump administration to negotiate an agreement. Last I checked, the U.S. Senate was a separate branch of government with its own responsibilities. Yet we have the Republican leader, who runs the U.S. Senate from the floor, telling people to go home and be on standby because he wants the President of the United States, the Trump administration, to negotiate an agreement and then come back to us. In other words, the Republican leader wants to contract out his responsibilities and the responsibilities of the U.S. Senate to the executive branch. If you look at the U.S. Constitution, there are three separate branches of government. Yet the Republican leader has decided to give his proxy to the President of the United States, to the executive branch, rather than stay here in the U.S. Senate and do our work. Now, why is that? Why is it that the majority leader has decided to contract out his responsibilities and those of the Senate to the executive branch of government? Well, we don't have to guess because Mr. McConnell has told us. He told PBS NewsHour: ``About 20 of my Members think that we have already done enough.'' Let me read that again. This is from the Republican leader: ``About 20 of my Members think that we have already done enough.'' He is obviously referring to Republican Members of the Senate caucus. These are Members of the Senate Republican caucus. They think all is well; we have done enough; we don't need to do any more to expand access to testing, don't need to expand access to personal protective equipment, don't need to do anything to help our schools. We have done enough. We don't need to do anything more on unemployment insurance, where the additional $600 a week has expired. Senator McConnell said that 20 of his Members thought they have already done enough. The eviction moratorium is coming to an end, both nationally and in many States, but 20Members of the Senate Republican caucus, their leader says they have done enough. Here is what Senator Lindsey Graham said on FOX: ``I think, if Mitch can get one-half of the conference, that would be quite an accomplishment''--referring to the Republican conference. So Senator Graham of South Carolina is saying that if Mitch McConnell--if Mr. McConnell, the Republican leader, can get half the Members of the Republican Senate caucus to do anything, that would be quite an accomplishment. I want all of us to think about what that means. What it means is that many of our colleagues are happy to have packed up and gone home and that we are not doing anything because they don't think we need to be doing anything. That is really why we are not here. That is also why you saw the Trump administration emissaries, Secretary Mnuchin and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, walk away from the negotiating table. They understood that, if they reached what was truly a compromise, a principal compromise, Senator Graham said that half the Republican caucus would oppose it because they would oppose anything. So that is why you had the Trump administration walk away from the negotiating table and refuse to come to a sensible agreement. What did we get instead? Because they walked away from an agreement, we had the President of the United States throw together a press conference at his golf club in New Jersey. He put the American flags up at his golf club, put out a podium with the Presidential seal, invited club members to witness the signing of an Executive order and some memos. Here is the really sad truth about the matter: It was mostly show rather than real substance. It was something that we would come to expect from somebody who is really good at reality TV but somebody who did not understand the painful realities being experienced by Americans throughout this country during this health pandemic and the economic pandemic. I say that because, if you begin to look at what the President actually signed, it is both inadequate and also unworkable in almost all its parts. Let's put aside for now the question of whether or not the President had the legal authority to do what he did because, clearly, in some parts of his Executive order and his memos, he does not have the constitutional authority to do that. We have heard that from some of the Senate Republican Members already. But let's set that aside and just see whether it will actually deliver meaningful relief to Americans or whether it is more like the degree that was given to folks who attended so-called Trump University, which turned out to be a fraud and is now shuttered. Let's take a look at what the President did. First, with respect to extending the $600 a week of unemployment insurance benefits--and let's remember the starting point for this is that neither the President of the United States, Donald Trump, nor the Republican Senate want to extend the $600-a-week unemployment compensation. They say it is too much for Americans who are out of work, through no fault of their own, because of this pandemic and even though there are poor people looking for work right now in America for every job that is available. I hear from constituents every day--I read some of their stories last Thursday on the floor of the Senate--people who badly want to get back to work, but their former job is gone, and there is no new job to replace it, and they need that additional $600 a week to make ends meet. In fact, I want to read to the Senate some additional letters I received from constituents on this point: Please act to extend the $600-a-week unemployment enhancement. I am requesting it both in my name and on behalf of my wife. We both lost our jobs. And the additional $600 is significantly helping keep us afloat and purchase the needs of life. My job was supposed to restart in late June, but the owner has pushed it back to November, December, to be determined. My wife was put on furlough and told the company hoped to bring everybody back but has heard nothing yet. Without the additional $600, a time will come in the next few months when we will be unable to pay our bills. Here is a note I received from another constituent: Respectfully, Senator Chris Van Hollen, I would like to write to you about the $600 unemployment. I understand that the other party is fighting you all the way. This is painful because I am a diabetic, and, at this point, because that benefit was taken away, I have to choose between paying my bills or my insulin. I applied sometime in June, since I was thinking I would be back to work. Gone are my savings to pay rent, car loan, insurance, and other bills. From this week on, because of losing the $600, I will have to stop paying bills so I can pay for my insulin. I never thought that I would be in a situation like this in America, where if you work hard, pay your taxes--to be able to have a roof over your head, health insurance, and human dignity. I, like I am sure many of my colleagues, have received hundreds--hundreds of notes like that from our constituents, people who will not be able to make ends meet without the additional $600 a week, but the President doesn't want to continue that, nor do Senate Republicans. And so what did the President say up in New Jersey? He came up with this plan that, unfortunately, will not deliver. Essentially, what he said was: Take the funds that were provided in the CARES Act to the States--the U.S. Congress provided about $150 billion to States to help during the early stages of this pandemic, both to help purchase things like PPE and also to address the economic fallout. I should remind my colleagues that Senator McConnell was dead against that, even in the earlier version. If you go back and look at the debate in the Record, you will find that he was dead set against providing any funds to State and local governments. That was the result of a compromise that he succeeded in pushing in those negotiations. But in these most recent negotiations--these most recent negotiations--both the White House and, again, Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans took the position of no funds for State and local governments. I remember a few months back when asked, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said: Let them go bankrupt. Let them go bankrupt. Well, there is a productive solution. He may have walked those comments back a little bit, but he did not walk back his opposition to any funds for State and local governments. What did the President say in New Jersey the other day? OK, States, take the earlier emergency funds that Congress provided and use those as a 25-percent match to the 300 Federal dollars so we can provide $400 per week in additional employment insurance. Here is the problem with that. We provided that $150 billion emergency assistance to the States because of the emergencies they were facing then and continue to face because they are facing both increased costs with respect to helping frontline healthcare providers and hospitals and providing them with personal protective equipment The Federal Government has been pretty much AWOL when it comes to testing. The President said to the States, you-all set up testing regimes. And so they are using some of those funds we provided for that. They are using those funds to try to open schools safely or help provide distance learning when schools can't be open safely. Many of the States--especially those hardest hit--have already allocated the great majority, if not all, of those funds. And now the President is saying: Oh, well, use those funds that we provided to you earlier for this other purpose. No. 1, those States and other areas have already allocated most of those funds. I noticed that if you look at the Treasury tables, the data they released, it was for the end of June, and that money was already spent--not today. The money was already allocated. So, first of all, for many States, that money is already spoken for, but let's say in some cases there is some money left over. What is the President of the United States saying? He is saying he wants to take from one American to give to another one. The President wants to pit these needs against oneanother. He wants to rob constituent Peter to pay constituent Paul. Those moneys went to the States. Those moneys went to States to pay for real needs. OK, Governor; OK, State legislature, you are going to have to fire that emergency responder who will now both be out of a job and unable to provide emergency assistance so that you can give a $100 match to help somebody who has lost their job a little bit more. That is what the President is saying to those States that do have something leftover. We don't even know how much that is. If you think about it, that is not how a country should be responding in the middle of a pandemic. Governors, you have to hurt that person to help that one. That is what the plan of the President of the United States says, and that is when it is working the way he wants it. That is if it works as advertised. From the President's perspective, best case scenario, when this plan is working, he is asking Governors to take from one set of constituents of Americans who are hurting badly, could lose a job--they need the PPE; they need testing; they need to open the schools, but take it from over there, and put it over here. That is what the President is saying. That is assuming it works at all, whether that money is available and whether there is a way you can actually do all of this through what is a pretty cumbersome administrative process. I don't know if any of my colleagues saw the Sunday shows in realtime or reruns or read about them, but here is what Larry Kudlow was asked on the CNN ``Morning Show'' by Dana Bash, simple question: Have you checked with the States? How many of the 50 States and DC and other territories say that they are going to be able to pony up $100 a week per unemployed citizen? Larry Kudlow: Good question. Good question. We will probably find that out today or tomorrow as we make our canvas. If there wasn't another sign that what happened in New Jersey was a total show, this tells it all. They laid out a plan asking States that have run out of money, but if they have some money, to rob Peter to pay Paul, but they didn't even ask the States if it was doable. They didn't even ask the States if it was doable. That is a reflection of this entire plan. Let's look at what the President said about the second piece--payroll tax deferral. A lot of Americans might have heard that and thought: I am an employee. I am working, and now the portion of my check that is withheld for payroll taxes--like Social Security--I am not going to have to pay that anymore, and that will be money in my pocket. That is not what it did. What it did was say to these people who are working--by the way, as we all know, deducting payroll taxes from paychecks doesn't help the 30 million who don't have a job. They are not getting a paycheck. They have nothing to deduct something from. People who are working and thought this was going to be extra money that they can pocket forever, that is not the case. What the President was saying is that we will withhold those payroll taxes from your paychecks through the end of the year, but it is going to come due and owing. These are people who are working. These are people who have their jobs. Maybe they want to defer that for a little while or not, but at the end of the day, they are going to have to pay it back to Uncle Sam. Here is the other problem. Employers are the ones who are legally responsible for the delivery of those payroll taxes, not just for the employer but for the employee as well. They are going to have to take the risk that if one of their employees doesn't want their Social Security taxes paid--in other words, they want them withheld--ultimately, they will be paid back. But what we are hearing from lots of employers is they can't guarantee that. First of all, what if that employee leaves? How am I going to repay that portion of the payroll taxes? Here is another example of something that may have sounded good to some people when they heard it, but it really is a shell game in the first instance and, in many ways, a sham. By the way, whether it is a deferral or if it is ultimately forgiven--that would require an act of Congress--then, the Social Security system takes a hit. Then the Social Security system takes a hit unless you refund it, but that is not in the President's plan. The President's memo doesn't talk about refunding it if, in fact, it were ever forgiven, which he can't do either. Let's look at the eviction moratorium. That is a real mirage. I urge my colleagues just to read the Executive order. The Executive order tells Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control to ``consider'' whether an extended eviction moratorium is reasonably necessary to protect the public health. He is asking two Federal agencies to consider a question he posed to them. I imagine a lot of people who may have watched the President with the American flags up in his country club thought: Wow, the President just said that no one can get evicted. That is not what he said at all. It was a sham. He said HHS and CDC should ``consider'' whether an extended eviction moratorium is reasonably necessary to protect the public health. Then he asked HUD and Treasury to look around in their bank accounts to see if they have money to help people who might be evicted. Do you know the way to help people who may be evicted? First of all, don't let them be evicted in the first place, and help them and the landlords by passing the rental assistance provision that is in the Heroes Act that passed the House. Whether you look at the unemployment insurance provision or the payroll tax provision or the so-called eviction moratorium provision, this really is show and not substance. I am only talking about what the President put into the plan, not everything that got left out--everything that got left out that is in the Heroes Act: helping people go back to schools safely; helping to expand realtime testing so that we can open our economy and schools safely; food assistance for those who are struggling; rental assistance; money for State and local government, whose needs have only risen dramatically since the last down payment that Congress passed in the CARES Act. Now the President is saying that we want you to go poach that fund and hurt people by taking things away from them in order to help other Americans. Those are some of the things that were totally left out of here. I have often heard, when talking about State and local governments, that the President tweets all the time that this is just a question of blue States wanting to be bailed out for bad economic decisions or bad budget problems they had and that red States are just doing great. Anybody who looks at the State financial affairs knows that is not true. Take a look at my State of Maryland. Most people would consider us a blue State. We have the AAA bond rating. The last I checked, the State of Kentucky was a single A bond rating. This isn't a question of whether we want to help States that somehow had difficult financial situations before the coronavirus hit. The reality is that right now this is not a red State or blue State issue. This is an American issue. We all know that the virus has spread throughout the country. Nobody can totally escape it. It doesn't matter whether you are a red State or a blue State. This is a red, white, and blue moment, and we need to treat it as a national effort, not a State by State effort but one also where the Federal Government plays a very important role and is not AWOL in the middle of a pandemic, and not playing politics in the middle of a pandemic. Listen to the healthcare experts about whether or not to wear a mask instead of making that a political statement that puts people at greater risk who follow the President's political advice rather than the healthcare advice of the healthcare experts. I hope we will get back to the negotiating table. But to do that, the President has to be serious about reaching a conclusion, and he is going to need help from the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and from that more than half of the Senate Republican conference that both Senator McConnell and Senator Graham say do not want to do anything at all. Let me clarify that. The Republican leader said 20 Members don't want to do anything atall, and it was Senator Graham who said about half. If that is the case, our country is in even bigger trouble than we might have thought because there is a failure to recognize the immediacy of the need and the depth of the problem that we face. Let's get back to the negotiating table. I remember some of the President's top priorities when he first presented his plan. He wanted that tax break for three-martini lunches for business executives--no food assistance for needy families but yes to tax breaks for three-martini lunches. That is what the President said. I think we were all surprised to see he wanted $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion to build a new FBI headquarters at its current site, rather than follow through with the original plan, which was to move that headquarters to a suburban campus for security needs and to consolidate. But I guess if you rebuild it at its current site, there really is no risk that someone will buy that land and end up building a hotel that competes with the nearby Trump hotel. That was part of the President's set of priorities in the middle of an emergency. American people need to understand that. Let's get back to the negotiating table. What the President did was show and not substance. We need to work together in order to do something meaningful. Don't walk away. Come on back and let's work. And, finally, when I say come on back--again, I will end where I started. It is awfully quiet around here. We are in the middle of a pandemic. The virus hasn't taken a vacation. The virus hasn't taken any time off. The economic harm isn't taking a vacation or any time off. Yet here we are in the Senate, all quiet. Talks break down with the administration. We are a separate branch of government under the Constitution of the United States. Let's get back here and do our job for the American people. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-10-pt1-PgS5362 | null | 1,193 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank you. I want to thank the minority leader--the Democratic leader, Mr. Schumer--for his remarks. There are not many of us around here in the Senate today. It is pretty quiet. If you walk through the halls, there is virtually nobody around. That is what it was like last Thursday afternoon. That is what it was like here in the Senate on Friday and again on Saturday and again on Sunday. Here we are again on Monday, and this Senate is virtually a ghost town--a few people here, but for the most part, everybody was sent home by the majority leader, by Senator McConnell. He told Senators: Go home until further notice. Go home. We are going to put the Senate on standby. No need to be here doing the people's business. Well, the coronavirus is not on standby. The coronavirus is very much alive and well and spreading throughout the country--more severely in some parts than others but spreading throughout the country--and with it has come the spread of economic pain and economic harm. So COVID-19 is not on standby, and neither is the economic pain and fallout that it has caused. But here in the U.S. Senate, the Republican leader, the majority leader, has said: Go home and be on standby. That is not leadership at any time. It is certainly not the kind of leadership that the American people need and should expect during a global pandemic and recession-era unemployment levels. So why did the majority leader tell people to just go home and be on standby? It is because he wanted the Trump administration to negotiate an agreement. Last I checked, the U.S. Senate was a separate branch of government with its own responsibilities. Yet we have the Republican leader, who runs the U.S. Senate from the floor, telling people to go home and be on standby because he wants the President of the United States, the Trump administration, to negotiate an agreement and then come back to us. In other words, the Republican leader wants to contract out his responsibilities and the responsibilities of the U.S. Senate to the executive branch. If you look at the U.S. Constitution, there are three separate branches of government. Yet the Republican leader has decided to give his proxy to the President of the United States, to the executive branch, rather than stay here in the U.S. Senate and do our work. Now, why is that? Why is it that the majority leader has decided to contract out his responsibilities and those of the Senate to the executive branch of government? Well, we don't have to guess because Mr. McConnell has told us. He told PBS NewsHour: ``About 20 of my Members think that we have already done enough.'' Let me read that again. This is from the Republican leader: ``About 20 of my Members think that we have already done enough.'' He is obviously referring to Republican Members of the Senate caucus. These are Members of the Senate Republican caucus. They think all is well; we have done enough; we don't need to do any more to expand access to testing, don't need to expand access to personal protective equipment, don't need to do anything to help our schools. We have done enough. We don't need to do anything more on unemployment insurance, where the additional $600 a week has expired. Senator McConnell said that 20 of his Members thought they have already done enough. The eviction moratorium is coming to an end, both nationally and in many States, but 20Members of the Senate Republican caucus, their leader says they have done enough. Here is what Senator Lindsey Graham said on FOX: ``I think, if Mitch can get one-half of the conference, that would be quite an accomplishment''--referring to the Republican conference. So Senator Graham of South Carolina is saying that if Mitch McConnell--if Mr. McConnell, the Republican leader, can get half the Members of the Republican Senate caucus to do anything, that would be quite an accomplishment. I want all of us to think about what that means. What it means is that many of our colleagues are happy to have packed up and gone home and that we are not doing anything because they don't think we need to be doing anything. That is really why we are not here. That is also why you saw the Trump administration emissaries, Secretary Mnuchin and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, walk away from the negotiating table. They understood that, if they reached what was truly a compromise, a principal compromise, Senator Graham said that half the Republican caucus would oppose it because they would oppose anything. So that is why you had the Trump administration walk away from the negotiating table and refuse to come to a sensible agreement. What did we get instead? Because they walked away from an agreement, we had the President of the United States throw together a press conference at his golf club in New Jersey. He put the American flags up at his golf club, put out a podium with the Presidential seal, invited club members to witness the signing of an Executive order and some memos. Here is the really sad truth about the matter: It was mostly show rather than real substance. It was something that we would come to expect from somebody who is really good at reality TV but somebody who did not understand the painful realities being experienced by Americans throughout this country during this health pandemic and the economic pandemic. I say that because, if you begin to look at what the President actually signed, it is both inadequate and also unworkable in almost all its parts. Let's put aside for now the question of whether or not the President had the legal authority to do what he did because, clearly, in some parts of his Executive order and his memos, he does not have the constitutional authority to do that. We have heard that from some of the Senate Republican Members already. But let's set that aside and just see whether it will actually deliver meaningful relief to Americans or whether it is more like the degree that was given to folks who attended so-called Trump University, which turned out to be a fraud and is now shuttered. Let's take a look at what the President did. First, with respect to extending the $600 a week of unemployment insurance benefits--and let's remember the starting point for this is that neither the President of the United States, Donald Trump, nor the Republican Senate want to extend the $600-a-week unemployment compensation. They say it is too much for Americans who are out of work, through no fault of their own, because of this pandemic and even though there are poor people looking for work right now in America for every job that is available. I hear from constituents every day--I read some of their stories last Thursday on the floor of the Senate--people who badly want to get back to work, but their former job is gone, and there is no new job to replace it, and they need that additional $600 a week to make ends meet. In fact, I want to read to the Senate some additional letters I received from constituents on this point: Please act to extend the $600-a-week unemployment enhancement. I am requesting it both in my name and on behalf of my wife. We both lost our jobs. And the additional $600 is significantly helping keep us afloat and purchase the needs of life. My job was supposed to restart in late June, but the owner has pushed it back to November, December, to be determined. My wife was put on furlough and told the company hoped to bring everybody back but has heard nothing yet. Without the additional $600, a time will come in the next few months when we will be unable to pay our bills. Here is a note I received from another constituent: Respectfully, Senator Chris Van Hollen, I would like to write to you about the $600 unemployment. I understand that the other party is fighting you all the way. This is painful because I am a diabetic, and, at this point, because that benefit was taken away, I have to choose between paying my bills or my insulin. I applied sometime in June, since I was thinking I would be back to work. Gone are my savings to pay rent, car loan, insurance, and other bills. From this week on, because of losing the $600, I will have to stop paying bills so I can pay for my insulin. I never thought that I would be in a situation like this in America, where if you work hard, pay your taxes--to be able to have a roof over your head, health insurance, and human dignity. I, like I am sure many of my colleagues, have received hundreds--hundreds of notes like that from our constituents, people who will not be able to make ends meet without the additional $600 a week, but the President doesn't want to continue that, nor do Senate Republicans. And so what did the President say up in New Jersey? He came up with this plan that, unfortunately, will not deliver. Essentially, what he said was: Take the funds that were provided in the CARES Act to the States--the U.S. Congress provided about $150 billion to States to help during the early stages of this pandemic, both to help purchase things like PPE and also to address the economic fallout. I should remind my colleagues that Senator McConnell was dead against that, even in the earlier version. If you go back and look at the debate in the Record, you will find that he was dead set against providing any funds to State and local governments. That was the result of a compromise that he succeeded in pushing in those negotiations. But in these most recent negotiations--these most recent negotiations--both the White House and, again, Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans took the position of no funds for State and local governments. I remember a few months back when asked, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said: Let them go bankrupt. Let them go bankrupt. Well, there is a productive solution. He may have walked those comments back a little bit, but he did not walk back his opposition to any funds for State and local governments. What did the President say in New Jersey the other day? OK, States, take the earlier emergency funds that Congress provided and use those as a 25-percent match to the 300 Federal dollars so we can provide $400 per week in additional employment insurance. Here is the problem with that. We provided that $150 billion emergency assistance to the States because of the emergencies they were facing then and continue to face because they are facing both increased costs with respect to helping frontline healthcare providers and hospitals and providing them with personal protective equipment The Federal Government has been pretty much AWOL when it comes to testing. The President said to the States, you-all set up testing regimes. And so they are using some of those funds we provided for that. They are using those funds to try to open schools safely or help provide distance learning when schools can't be open safely. Many of the States--especially those hardest hit--have already allocated the great majority, if not all, of those funds. And now the President is saying: Oh, well, use those funds that we provided to you earlier for this other purpose. No. 1, those States and other areas have already allocated most of those funds. I noticed that if you look at the Treasury tables, the data they released, it was for the end of June, and that money was already spent--not today. The money was already allocated. So, first of all, for many States, that money is already spoken for, but let's say in some cases there is some money left over. What is the President of the United States saying? He is saying he wants to take from one American to give to another one. The President wants to pit these needs against oneanother. He wants to rob constituent Peter to pay constituent Paul. Those moneys went to the States. Those moneys went to States to pay for real needs. OK, Governor; OK, State legislature, you are going to have to fire that emergency responder who will now both be out of a job and unable to provide emergency assistance so that you can give a $100 match to help somebody who has lost their job a little bit more. That is what the President is saying to those States that do have something leftover. We don't even know how much that is. If you think about it, that is not how a country should be responding in the middle of a pandemic. Governors, you have to hurt that person to help that one. That is what the plan of the President of the United States says, and that is when it is working the way he wants it. That is if it works as advertised. From the President's perspective, best case scenario, when this plan is working, he is asking Governors to take from one set of constituents of Americans who are hurting badly, could lose a job--they need the PPE; they need testing; they need to open the schools, but take it from over there, and put it over here. That is what the President is saying. That is assuming it works at all, whether that money is available and whether there is a way you can actually do all of this through what is a pretty cumbersome administrative process. I don't know if any of my colleagues saw the Sunday shows in realtime or reruns or read about them, but here is what Larry Kudlow was asked on the CNN ``Morning Show'' by Dana Bash, simple question: Have you checked with the States? How many of the 50 States and DC and other territories say that they are going to be able to pony up $100 a week per unemployed citizen? Larry Kudlow: Good question. Good question. We will probably find that out today or tomorrow as we make our canvas. If there wasn't another sign that what happened in New Jersey was a total show, this tells it all. They laid out a plan asking States that have run out of money, but if they have some money, to rob Peter to pay Paul, but they didn't even ask the States if it was doable. They didn't even ask the States if it was doable. That is a reflection of this entire plan. Let's look at what the President said about the second piece--payroll tax deferral. A lot of Americans might have heard that and thought: I am an employee. I am working, and now the portion of my check that is withheld for payroll taxes--like Social Security--I am not going to have to pay that anymore, and that will be money in my pocket. That is not what it did. What it did was say to these people who are working--by the way, as we all know, deducting payroll taxes from paychecks doesn't help the 30 million who don't have a job. They are not getting a paycheck. They have nothing to deduct something from. People who are working and thought this was going to be extra money that they can pocket forever, that is not the case. What the President was saying is that we will withhold those payroll taxes from your paychecks through the end of the year, but it is going to come due and owing. These are people who are working. These are people who have their jobs. Maybe they want to defer that for a little while or not, but at the end of the day, they are going to have to pay it back to Uncle Sam. Here is the other problem. Employers are the ones who are legally responsible for the delivery of those payroll taxes, not just for the employer but for the employee as well. They are going to have to take the risk that if one of their employees doesn't want their Social Security taxes paid--in other words, they want them withheld--ultimately, they will be paid back. But what we are hearing from lots of employers is they can't guarantee that. First of all, what if that employee leaves? How am I going to repay that portion of the payroll taxes? Here is another example of something that may have sounded good to some people when they heard it, but it really is a shell game in the first instance and, in many ways, a sham. By the way, whether it is a deferral or if it is ultimately forgiven--that would require an act of Congress--then, the Social Security system takes a hit. Then the Social Security system takes a hit unless you refund it, but that is not in the President's plan. The President's memo doesn't talk about refunding it if, in fact, it were ever forgiven, which he can't do either. Let's look at the eviction moratorium. That is a real mirage. I urge my colleagues just to read the Executive order. The Executive order tells Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control to ``consider'' whether an extended eviction moratorium is reasonably necessary to protect the public health. He is asking two Federal agencies to consider a question he posed to them. I imagine a lot of people who may have watched the President with the American flags up in his country club thought: Wow, the President just said that no one can get evicted. That is not what he said at all. It was a sham. He said HHS and CDC should ``consider'' whether an extended eviction moratorium is reasonably necessary to protect the public health. Then he asked HUD and Treasury to look around in their bank accounts to see if they have money to help people who might be evicted. Do you know the way to help people who may be evicted? First of all, don't let them be evicted in the first place, and help them and the landlords by passing the rental assistance provision that is in the Heroes Act that passed the House. Whether you look at the unemployment insurance provision or the payroll tax provision or the so-called eviction moratorium provision, this really is show and not substance. I am only talking about what the President put into the plan, not everything that got left out--everything that got left out that is in the Heroes Act: helping people go back to schools safely; helping to expand realtime testing so that we can open our economy and schools safely; food assistance for those who are struggling; rental assistance; money for State and local government, whose needs have only risen dramatically since the last down payment that Congress passed in the CARES Act. Now the President is saying that we want you to go poach that fund and hurt people by taking things away from them in order to help other Americans. Those are some of the things that were totally left out of here. I have often heard, when talking about State and local governments, that the President tweets all the time that this is just a question of blue States wanting to be bailed out for bad economic decisions or bad budget problems they had and that red States are just doing great. Anybody who looks at the State financial affairs knows that is not true. Take a look at my State of Maryland. Most people would consider us a blue State. We have the AAA bond rating. The last I checked, the State of Kentucky was a single A bond rating. This isn't a question of whether we want to help States that somehow had difficult financial situations before the coronavirus hit. The reality is that right now this is not a red State or blue State issue. This is an American issue. We all know that the virus has spread throughout the country. Nobody can totally escape it. It doesn't matter whether you are a red State or a blue State. This is a red, white, and blue moment, and we need to treat it as a national effort, not a State by State effort but one also where the Federal Government plays a very important role and is not AWOL in the middle of a pandemic, and not playing politics in the middle of a pandemic. Listen to the healthcare experts about whether or not to wear a mask instead of making that a political statement that puts people at greater risk who follow the President's political advice rather than the healthcare advice of the healthcare experts. I hope we will get back to the negotiating table. But to do that, the President has to be serious about reaching a conclusion, and he is going to need help from the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and from that more than half of the Senate Republican conference that both Senator McConnell and Senator Graham say do not want to do anything at all. Let me clarify that. The Republican leader said 20 Members don't want to do anything atall, and it was Senator Graham who said about half. If that is the case, our country is in even bigger trouble than we might have thought because there is a failure to recognize the immediacy of the need and the depth of the problem that we face. Let's get back to the negotiating table. I remember some of the President's top priorities when he first presented his plan. He wanted that tax break for three-martini lunches for business executives--no food assistance for needy families but yes to tax breaks for three-martini lunches. That is what the President said. I think we were all surprised to see he wanted $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion to build a new FBI headquarters at its current site, rather than follow through with the original plan, which was to move that headquarters to a suburban campus for security needs and to consolidate. But I guess if you rebuild it at its current site, there really is no risk that someone will buy that land and end up building a hotel that competes with the nearby Trump hotel. That was part of the President's set of priorities in the middle of an emergency. American people need to understand that. Let's get back to the negotiating table. What the President did was show and not substance. We need to work together in order to do something meaningful. Don't walk away. Come on back and let's work. And, finally, when I say come on back--again, I will end where I started. It is awfully quiet around here. We are in the middle of a pandemic. The virus hasn't taken a vacation. The virus hasn't taken any time off. The economic harm isn't taking a vacation or any time off. Yet here we are in the Senate, all quiet. Talks break down with the administration. We are a separate branch of government under the Constitution of the United States. Let's get back here and do our job for the American people. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-08-10-pt1-PgS5362 | null | 1,194 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following prayer: Loving God, we thank You for giving us another day. Please send Your spirit upon all those in elected leadership in our Nation, most especially the Members of the people's House, as they listen to the voices and concerns of their constituents at home. Our citizens continue to struggle with the threat of the coronavirus and the economic difficulties that have resulted throughout our communities. Pour forth Your wisdom upon all who are chosen to care for the common welfare of our Nation. May all that is done be for Your greater honor and glory. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-08-11-pt1-PgH4229-3 | null | 1,195 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there has been a lot of focus lately on the drama here in Washington. For weeks now, as leading Democrats blocked more pandemic relief over unrelated liberal demands, the press has covered their stonewalling like any ordinary political standoff. Who talked to whom? Who said what in which meeting? What new metaphor did Speaker Pelosi use today to explain that she was blocking progress? But it does the Nation a disservice to act like the last several weeks were just another routine political standoff. It does struggling families and laid-off workers and stressed-out school principals and healthcare professionals a disservice to act like this has just been more Washington gridlock. The New York Times proclaimed a few days ago that ``[Speaker] Pelosi is playing hardball on coronavirus relief.'' Well, that is one way to put it. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to refuse any outcome for the country. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to insist on non-COVID-related liberal policy changes that the Speaker and the Democratic leader know would never pass the Senate or be signed into law by the President. But if Democrats are ``playing hardball,'' their opponents aren't us Republicans--not really. They are playing hardball against kids, workers, and vulnerable Americans who need help. They are playing hardball against our medical system when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they won't allow another dime for testing, treatments, or vaccines unless they can bring home a massive tax cut for millionaires in San Francisco and New York City. They are playing hardball against our Nation's ability to detect and fight the virus. They are playing hardball against science when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow another cent for schools to reopen or for the job-saving PPP unless they get $1 trillion for a State and local slush fund that is completely out of proportion to actual needs. They are playing hardball against children and parents when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow any resolution on any issue unless Democrats can pay people more not to work. They are playing hardball against millions of households that ought to get another stimulus check and against the ability of jobless people to get any Federal benefit whatsoever. There are life-and-death matters at stake, but Democrats have treated this historic national crisis as a political game. Just look at the redlines the Democratic leaders have drawn around these negotiations. Imagine sitting down with a working family at their kitchen table and explaining that these are the kinds of issues over which the Speaker and the Democratic leader are refusing--refusing--to let them have relief. First, as I mentioned, the Democratic leader has made clear he doesn't want any pandemic relief to become law unless--unless--it carries a special State and local tax carve-out for high earners in places like New York. Just imagine these Democratic leaders from New York and San Francisco going anywhere in the middle of the country and telling a working family of four, earning $40,000 a year, that they aren't getting a relief check that could increase their income by 10 percent until millionaires in Manhattan get a tax cut. Economists on all sides have panned this. A huge, costly tax cut for wealthy people in blue States is not the life raft that struggling people need. Even liberal economists have jumped ship. Here is what one self-identified progressive told reporters: ``This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the economy heal and it would not benefit the people who need help.'' These are the economists on their side? But forget about the experts. Forget about laid-off people. Forget about Middle America. The Speaker and the Democratic leader want to cut off funding for our war with the coronavirus unless they get this special carve-out. Here is another one of those dead-on-arrival demands: Democrats insist that working families, small businesses, and healthcare providers will not get any more help unless a new trillion-dollar slush fund for poorly managed States tags along. Bear in mind that States and localities have only spent about a fourth--a fourth--of the money we already sent them last spring. Even Senate Democrats seem to acknowledge this, for example, by sponsoring legislation that would extend the deadline for the States to spend down their CARES Act aid. The States need extra time to spend what we have already sent them, and the serious estimates of the COVID shortfall that State and local governments may face are a fraction--a fraction--of the Democrats' trillion-dollar demand. Their demands aren't based on math. They aren't based on the pandemic. They want a massive slush fund to make up for decades of mismanagement. It is just how the Speaker explained her view of the crisis. This is what she said: This is an opportunity. Every crisis is. That same opportunism leads them to another absurd demand. Democrats say nobody should get any more help unless--unless--the Federal Government sends out jobless benefits that pay more than what people made working. Republicans support extending a Federal supplement for unemployment--make no mistake about that--but we share the view of Democrats like the House Democratic majority, the senior Senator from Maryland, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut, all of whom indicated it should be doable to land somewhere smarter than a flat $600. This is not complicated. Both sides want to help unemployed people. Republicans never wanted the Federal benefit to lapse to zero and tried to extend the money. But as our economy tries to reopen, there is no reason Uncle Sam should take taxes out of essential workers' paychecks to pay other people more to stay home. This is just a flavor of the Democratic demands. The two parties should have been able to agree on a huge sweep of subjects--from testing to school money, legal protection to direct payments and more. Republicans wanted to reach an agreement everywhere we could and then continue to fight over the contested questions later. Democrats said no because they know their unrelated wish-list items would have no prayer--no prayer--of standing on their own merit. Only these hostage tactics could possibly get their bad ideas across the finish line. So struggling people have waited and waited and gotten nothing. That has been the Democrats' decision. Reporters can call it ``hardball,'' like this was some ordinary standstill, but families are suffering. Americans are dying. This is not a Washington game; it is a national crisis. It would serve the Nation better if the Democratic leaders would act like it is a crisis | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-11-pt1-PgS5385-5 | null | 1,196 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there has been a lot of focus lately on the drama here in Washington. For weeks now, as leading Democrats blocked more pandemic relief over unrelated liberal demands, the press has covered their stonewalling like any ordinary political standoff. Who talked to whom? Who said what in which meeting? What new metaphor did Speaker Pelosi use today to explain that she was blocking progress? But it does the Nation a disservice to act like the last several weeks were just another routine political standoff. It does struggling families and laid-off workers and stressed-out school principals and healthcare professionals a disservice to act like this has just been more Washington gridlock. The New York Times proclaimed a few days ago that ``[Speaker] Pelosi is playing hardball on coronavirus relief.'' Well, that is one way to put it. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to refuse any outcome for the country. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to insist on non-COVID-related liberal policy changes that the Speaker and the Democratic leader know would never pass the Senate or be signed into law by the President. But if Democrats are ``playing hardball,'' their opponents aren't us Republicans--not really. They are playing hardball against kids, workers, and vulnerable Americans who need help. They are playing hardball against our medical system when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they won't allow another dime for testing, treatments, or vaccines unless they can bring home a massive tax cut for millionaires in San Francisco and New York City. They are playing hardball against our Nation's ability to detect and fight the virus. They are playing hardball against science when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow another cent for schools to reopen or for the job-saving PPP unless they get $1 trillion for a State and local slush fund that is completely out of proportion to actual needs. They are playing hardball against children and parents when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow any resolution on any issue unless Democrats can pay people more not to work. They are playing hardball against millions of households that ought to get another stimulus check and against the ability of jobless people to get any Federal benefit whatsoever. There are life-and-death matters at stake, but Democrats have treated this historic national crisis as a political game. Just look at the redlines the Democratic leaders have drawn around these negotiations. Imagine sitting down with a working family at their kitchen table and explaining that these are the kinds of issues over which the Speaker and the Democratic leader are refusing--refusing--to let them have relief. First, as I mentioned, the Democratic leader has made clear he doesn't want any pandemic relief to become law unless--unless--it carries a special State and local tax carve-out for high earners in places like New York. Just imagine these Democratic leaders from New York and San Francisco going anywhere in the middle of the country and telling a working family of four, earning $40,000 a year, that they aren't getting a relief check that could increase their income by 10 percent until millionaires in Manhattan get a tax cut. Economists on all sides have panned this. A huge, costly tax cut for wealthy people in blue States is not the life raft that struggling people need. Even liberal economists have jumped ship. Here is what one self-identified progressive told reporters: ``This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the economy heal and it would not benefit the people who need help.'' These are the economists on their side? But forget about the experts. Forget about laid-off people. Forget about Middle America. The Speaker and the Democratic leader want to cut off funding for our war with the coronavirus unless they get this special carve-out. Here is another one of those dead-on-arrival demands: Democrats insist that working families, small businesses, and healthcare providers will not get any more help unless a new trillion-dollar slush fund for poorly managed States tags along. Bear in mind that States and localities have only spent about a fourth--a fourth--of the money we already sent them last spring. Even Senate Democrats seem to acknowledge this, for example, by sponsoring legislation that would extend the deadline for the States to spend down their CARES Act aid. The States need extra time to spend what we have already sent them, and the serious estimates of the COVID shortfall that State and local governments may face are a fraction--a fraction--of the Democrats' trillion-dollar demand. Their demands aren't based on math. They aren't based on the pandemic. They want a massive slush fund to make up for decades of mismanagement. It is just how the Speaker explained her view of the crisis. This is what she said: This is an opportunity. Every crisis is. That same opportunism leads them to another absurd demand. Democrats say nobody should get any more help unless--unless--the Federal Government sends out jobless benefits that pay more than what people made working. Republicans support extending a Federal supplement for unemployment--make no mistake about that--but we share the view of Democrats like the House Democratic majority, the senior Senator from Maryland, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut, all of whom indicated it should be doable to land somewhere smarter than a flat $600. This is not complicated. Both sides want to help unemployed people. Republicans never wanted the Federal benefit to lapse to zero and tried to extend the money. But as our economy tries to reopen, there is no reason Uncle Sam should take taxes out of essential workers' paychecks to pay other people more to stay home. This is just a flavor of the Democratic demands. The two parties should have been able to agree on a huge sweep of subjects--from testing to school money, legal protection to direct payments and more. Republicans wanted to reach an agreement everywhere we could and then continue to fight over the contested questions later. Democrats said no because they know their unrelated wish-list items would have no prayer--no prayer--of standing on their own merit. Only these hostage tactics could possibly get their bad ideas across the finish line. So struggling people have waited and waited and gotten nothing. That has been the Democrats' decision. Reporters can call it ``hardball,'' like this was some ordinary standstill, but families are suffering. Americans are dying. This is not a Washington game; it is a national crisis. It would serve the Nation better if the Democratic leaders would act like it is a crisis | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-11-pt1-PgS5385-5 | null | 1,197 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there has been a lot of focus lately on the drama here in Washington. For weeks now, as leading Democrats blocked more pandemic relief over unrelated liberal demands, the press has covered their stonewalling like any ordinary political standoff. Who talked to whom? Who said what in which meeting? What new metaphor did Speaker Pelosi use today to explain that she was blocking progress? But it does the Nation a disservice to act like the last several weeks were just another routine political standoff. It does struggling families and laid-off workers and stressed-out school principals and healthcare professionals a disservice to act like this has just been more Washington gridlock. The New York Times proclaimed a few days ago that ``[Speaker] Pelosi is playing hardball on coronavirus relief.'' Well, that is one way to put it. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to refuse any outcome for the country. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to insist on non-COVID-related liberal policy changes that the Speaker and the Democratic leader know would never pass the Senate or be signed into law by the President. But if Democrats are ``playing hardball,'' their opponents aren't us Republicans--not really. They are playing hardball against kids, workers, and vulnerable Americans who need help. They are playing hardball against our medical system when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they won't allow another dime for testing, treatments, or vaccines unless they can bring home a massive tax cut for millionaires in San Francisco and New York City. They are playing hardball against our Nation's ability to detect and fight the virus. They are playing hardball against science when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow another cent for schools to reopen or for the job-saving PPP unless they get $1 trillion for a State and local slush fund that is completely out of proportion to actual needs. They are playing hardball against children and parents when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow any resolution on any issue unless Democrats can pay people more not to work. They are playing hardball against millions of households that ought to get another stimulus check and against the ability of jobless people to get any Federal benefit whatsoever. There are life-and-death matters at stake, but Democrats have treated this historic national crisis as a political game. Just look at the redlines the Democratic leaders have drawn around these negotiations. Imagine sitting down with a working family at their kitchen table and explaining that these are the kinds of issues over which the Speaker and the Democratic leader are refusing--refusing--to let them have relief. First, as I mentioned, the Democratic leader has made clear he doesn't want any pandemic relief to become law unless--unless--it carries a special State and local tax carve-out for high earners in places like New York. Just imagine these Democratic leaders from New York and San Francisco going anywhere in the middle of the country and telling a working family of four, earning $40,000 a year, that they aren't getting a relief check that could increase their income by 10 percent until millionaires in Manhattan get a tax cut. Economists on all sides have panned this. A huge, costly tax cut for wealthy people in blue States is not the life raft that struggling people need. Even liberal economists have jumped ship. Here is what one self-identified progressive told reporters: ``This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the economy heal and it would not benefit the people who need help.'' These are the economists on their side? But forget about the experts. Forget about laid-off people. Forget about Middle America. The Speaker and the Democratic leader want to cut off funding for our war with the coronavirus unless they get this special carve-out. Here is another one of those dead-on-arrival demands: Democrats insist that working families, small businesses, and healthcare providers will not get any more help unless a new trillion-dollar slush fund for poorly managed States tags along. Bear in mind that States and localities have only spent about a fourth--a fourth--of the money we already sent them last spring. Even Senate Democrats seem to acknowledge this, for example, by sponsoring legislation that would extend the deadline for the States to spend down their CARES Act aid. The States need extra time to spend what we have already sent them, and the serious estimates of the COVID shortfall that State and local governments may face are a fraction--a fraction--of the Democrats' trillion-dollar demand. Their demands aren't based on math. They aren't based on the pandemic. They want a massive slush fund to make up for decades of mismanagement. It is just how the Speaker explained her view of the crisis. This is what she said: This is an opportunity. Every crisis is. That same opportunism leads them to another absurd demand. Democrats say nobody should get any more help unless--unless--the Federal Government sends out jobless benefits that pay more than what people made working. Republicans support extending a Federal supplement for unemployment--make no mistake about that--but we share the view of Democrats like the House Democratic majority, the senior Senator from Maryland, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut, all of whom indicated it should be doable to land somewhere smarter than a flat $600. This is not complicated. Both sides want to help unemployed people. Republicans never wanted the Federal benefit to lapse to zero and tried to extend the money. But as our economy tries to reopen, there is no reason Uncle Sam should take taxes out of essential workers' paychecks to pay other people more to stay home. This is just a flavor of the Democratic demands. The two parties should have been able to agree on a huge sweep of subjects--from testing to school money, legal protection to direct payments and more. Republicans wanted to reach an agreement everywhere we could and then continue to fight over the contested questions later. Democrats said no because they know their unrelated wish-list items would have no prayer--no prayer--of standing on their own merit. Only these hostage tactics could possibly get their bad ideas across the finish line. So struggling people have waited and waited and gotten nothing. That has been the Democrats' decision. Reporters can call it ``hardball,'' like this was some ordinary standstill, but families are suffering. Americans are dying. This is not a Washington game; it is a national crisis. It would serve the Nation better if the Democratic leaders would act like it is a crisis | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-11-pt1-PgS5385-5 | null | 1,198 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there has been a lot of focus lately on the drama here in Washington. For weeks now, as leading Democrats blocked more pandemic relief over unrelated liberal demands, the press has covered their stonewalling like any ordinary political standoff. Who talked to whom? Who said what in which meeting? What new metaphor did Speaker Pelosi use today to explain that she was blocking progress? But it does the Nation a disservice to act like the last several weeks were just another routine political standoff. It does struggling families and laid-off workers and stressed-out school principals and healthcare professionals a disservice to act like this has just been more Washington gridlock. The New York Times proclaimed a few days ago that ``[Speaker] Pelosi is playing hardball on coronavirus relief.'' Well, that is one way to put it. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to refuse any outcome for the country. You could say it is ``playing hardball'' to insist on non-COVID-related liberal policy changes that the Speaker and the Democratic leader know would never pass the Senate or be signed into law by the President. But if Democrats are ``playing hardball,'' their opponents aren't us Republicans--not really. They are playing hardball against kids, workers, and vulnerable Americans who need help. They are playing hardball against our medical system when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they won't allow another dime for testing, treatments, or vaccines unless they can bring home a massive tax cut for millionaires in San Francisco and New York City. They are playing hardball against our Nation's ability to detect and fight the virus. They are playing hardball against science when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow another cent for schools to reopen or for the job-saving PPP unless they get $1 trillion for a State and local slush fund that is completely out of proportion to actual needs. They are playing hardball against children and parents when the Speaker and the Democratic leader say they will not allow any resolution on any issue unless Democrats can pay people more not to work. They are playing hardball against millions of households that ought to get another stimulus check and against the ability of jobless people to get any Federal benefit whatsoever. There are life-and-death matters at stake, but Democrats have treated this historic national crisis as a political game. Just look at the redlines the Democratic leaders have drawn around these negotiations. Imagine sitting down with a working family at their kitchen table and explaining that these are the kinds of issues over which the Speaker and the Democratic leader are refusing--refusing--to let them have relief. First, as I mentioned, the Democratic leader has made clear he doesn't want any pandemic relief to become law unless--unless--it carries a special State and local tax carve-out for high earners in places like New York. Just imagine these Democratic leaders from New York and San Francisco going anywhere in the middle of the country and telling a working family of four, earning $40,000 a year, that they aren't getting a relief check that could increase their income by 10 percent until millionaires in Manhattan get a tax cut. Economists on all sides have panned this. A huge, costly tax cut for wealthy people in blue States is not the life raft that struggling people need. Even liberal economists have jumped ship. Here is what one self-identified progressive told reporters: ``This is not a good idea. . . . It would not help the economy heal and it would not benefit the people who need help.'' These are the economists on their side? But forget about the experts. Forget about laid-off people. Forget about Middle America. The Speaker and the Democratic leader want to cut off funding for our war with the coronavirus unless they get this special carve-out. Here is another one of those dead-on-arrival demands: Democrats insist that working families, small businesses, and healthcare providers will not get any more help unless a new trillion-dollar slush fund for poorly managed States tags along. Bear in mind that States and localities have only spent about a fourth--a fourth--of the money we already sent them last spring. Even Senate Democrats seem to acknowledge this, for example, by sponsoring legislation that would extend the deadline for the States to spend down their CARES Act aid. The States need extra time to spend what we have already sent them, and the serious estimates of the COVID shortfall that State and local governments may face are a fraction--a fraction--of the Democrats' trillion-dollar demand. Their demands aren't based on math. They aren't based on the pandemic. They want a massive slush fund to make up for decades of mismanagement. It is just how the Speaker explained her view of the crisis. This is what she said: This is an opportunity. Every crisis is. That same opportunism leads them to another absurd demand. Democrats say nobody should get any more help unless--unless--the Federal Government sends out jobless benefits that pay more than what people made working. Republicans support extending a Federal supplement for unemployment--make no mistake about that--but we share the view of Democrats like the House Democratic majority, the senior Senator from Maryland, the Democratic Governor of Connecticut, all of whom indicated it should be doable to land somewhere smarter than a flat $600. This is not complicated. Both sides want to help unemployed people. Republicans never wanted the Federal benefit to lapse to zero and tried to extend the money. But as our economy tries to reopen, there is no reason Uncle Sam should take taxes out of essential workers' paychecks to pay other people more to stay home. This is just a flavor of the Democratic demands. The two parties should have been able to agree on a huge sweep of subjects--from testing to school money, legal protection to direct payments and more. Republicans wanted to reach an agreement everywhere we could and then continue to fight over the contested questions later. Democrats said no because they know their unrelated wish-list items would have no prayer--no prayer--of standing on their own merit. Only these hostage tactics could possibly get their bad ideas across the finish line. So struggling people have waited and waited and gotten nothing. That has been the Democrats' decision. Reporters can call it ``hardball,'' like this was some ordinary standstill, but families are suffering. Americans are dying. This is not a Washington game; it is a national crisis. It would serve the Nation better if the Democratic leaders would act like it is a crisis | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-08-11-pt1-PgS5385-5 | null | 1,199 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.