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 | single | null | homophobic | Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to add, on behalf of my Democratic colleagues, the concerns expressed for the President and First Lady, that they recover quickly and fully. Having had coronavirus--likely contracted here when we were working on the CARES Act in March--I understand how tricky this can be and, knowing four people who died of coronavirus, how serious it can be. Our prayer is that this is a mild case, and it passes quickly. I also extend the same concern on behalf of my Democratic colleagues for the Members of the Senate who have recently tested positive and hope that they either have no symptoms or the symptoms pass quickly. I couldn't help but notice, as I came into the Senate today on the subway from the Russell building, that there is an advisory that has been posted for months down at the entrance to the Senate that says that we are trying to follow CDC guidelines, but the advisory placard says nothing about masks--nothing. I have wondered about that as I passed before it in the past, but in light of the experience over the last few days, I think in order to fairly follow science-based guidelines and give people warnings about what they should do to protect their health, we might consider a different placard. Briefly, with respect to the majority leader's comments--I would love to be working on a COVID bill. The House passed a Democratic preferred COVID bill--the Heroes Act--in May. I understand the majority leader and his colleagues find things about it they don't like. There is no expectation that they would just take up the House Democratic bill and pass it, but we waited through May and then June and then July and then August, until finally, in mid to late September, the majority put a bill on the floor that we viewed, frankly, as insufficient. It contained no funds for State and local government aid, no funds for rental or mortgage assistance, no funds for SNAP benefits or food aid. It would have stricken State laws, such as those that had been passed in Virginia to try to provide a workplace safety standard for people returning to work in the days of COVID. We voted the bill down, as the majority leader knows, but we did so with the expectation that that no vote would function much like the no vote in March functioned when we came in on a Sunday and we voted down a partisan proposal, and a few days later, we had a bipartisan proposal--the CARES Act--that has helped millions and millions of Americans, small businesses, hospitals, families. We hope that no vote would lead to the same negotiation that could potentially find a solution for Americans who are still looking for relief, but the majority wants to now move to a different topic. They want to now speed through a Supreme Court nomination with an unprecedented speed and, indeed, an unprecedented process. I understand that the majority leader might categorize the Democrats' concerns about proceeding at a time of great sickness as a procedural trick, but I don't think there is any unreasonableness to a Judiciary Committee member's request that a hearing on the single most important appointment that the Senate might make should be done in person. If it is done in person, it should be done in person in a way that is safe. That is the request the Democrats would have and that we continue to believe would be in accord with the institution's norms but also the best thing for the safety of all Members. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KAINE | Senate | CREC-2020-10-05-pt1-PgS6034 | null | 1,500 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been said that the United States is like a brilliant tapestry woven from a dazzling array of colors and patterns into a unique whole. If that is true, then the contributions of Hispanics are surely among the largest and most vibrant swaths in our rich national tapestry, and Hispanic Heritage Month is a good time to reflect on those contributions. This celebration runs each year from mid-September to mid-October. The dates were chosen to coincide with the dates in which several Latin American nations--including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Chile--celebrate their own independence from colonial rule. This national celebration used to be just a week long, but in 1988, Congress wisely and unanimously voted to expand Hispanic Heritage Week to Hispanic Heritage Month. The legislation was sponsored by Congressman Esteban Torres and my friend and political mentor, Senator Paul Simon. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a proud, conservative Republican who understood that America's heritage as a nation of immigrants is one of our greatest sources of strength--economically, politically, culturally and morally. The contributions and influence of Latinos on our Nation has grown dramatically in the three decades since the establishment of Hispanic Heritage Month. Today there are more than 60 million Latinos in the U.S. Illinois is proud to be home to one of the largest Latino populations in the country, including many people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Guatemalan heritage. Latinos and Latinas are leaders in every walk of life, including business, the arts, sciences, education, sports, entertainment, and public service. A ``wise Latina,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now serves on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ellen Ochoa, an engineer and the first Latina astronaut, is now director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. Latinas are literally helping America reach for the stars. In my home State of Illinois, Dr. Juan Andrade, Jr., is the president of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, based in Chicago. He and his organization are doing critical work to educate and motivate Latinos to vote and to fill out the Census, ensuring that Latinos are seen and their voices heard. Alexis Esparza is president of Economic Strategies Development Corporation. For nearly half a century, his organization, ESDC, has worked in the Pilsen community of Chicago to preserve historic buildings, build affordable new housing, and help create new commercial and industrial economic development opportunities. They are part of a long and proud tradition of Hispanic men and women whose work has made America's economy more prosperous and fairer for all of us. Many Americans know the names Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. In 1966, these two brave labor leaders helped organize farm workers in Delano, CA, to form the United Farm Workers of America. Standing together, backed by their union, the farm workers were able to strike for higher wages, safer working conditions, and protections for women farm workers from sexual violence. Far fewer people recognize the name Guadalupe Marshall. She is also a hero for workers' rights. Let me tell you about her. On Memorial Day 1937, 10 unarmed union demonstrators from Republic Steele were shot down by police in Chicago. Lupe Marshall, who had immigrated to America from Mexico when she was 10 years old, was one of the people attending that strike. She was a mother of three and a volunteer social worker at the Jane Addams Hull House. The ``Memorial Day Massacre'' is how many history books label the carnage at Republic Steele. Three weeks after the killings, Lupe Marshall travelled to Washington, DC, to testify before the Senate about what she had witnessed. She described placing herself on the front line when shots rang out and then turning to see many people lying face down on the ground. She ran, but she was clubbed in the head and arrested. Her courage helped to build support among the American people and in Congress for laws to help working people stand together for fair wages, safe working conditions, and civil rights. During this Hispanic Heritage Month, we are especially aware of the enormous contributions that Hispanic Americans continue to make to America's economy. Sadly, we know that this COVID-19 pandemic is taking a disproportionate toll on Black and Brown Americans. Nationwide, Latinos are being hospitalized with COVID-19 at more than 4\1/2\ times the rate of White people. In Illinois and several other States, Latinos have the highest COVID-19 infection rates of any ethnic group. COVID-19 is also threatening the livelihoods of Latinos throughout the US. Almost 60 percent of Latino households have experienced job loss or wage reductions during this pandemic. At the same time, our Nation is relying heavily on Latinos, both citizens and immigrants, to help steer us safely through this pandemic. Latinos are working on the frontlines of this pandemic as doctors, nurses, and home healthcare workers. They are also working around the clock, behind the scenes, to disinfect our workplaces, schools, stores, and health centers. Latino farm workers continue to work in the fields and in packing plants, harvesting, and preparing the food that keeps us fed. Despite the virus and, now, the thick smoke of wildfires blanketing much of the west coast, they remain on the job. Latinos are working as grocery clerks, teachers, postal employees, servicemembers, and other ``essential worker jobs.'' Many of these heroic essential workers are immigrants, and many are Dreamers. They continue to work and serve in their communities while their own status remains in limbo. Latino-owned businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of America's economy. Nationwide, nearly 1-in-4 newly created businesses today are Latino-owned. More than 4 million Latino-owned businesses provide jobs for 2.7 million workers. Together, these businesses pump over $700 billion into America's economy. In Illinois, 120,000 Latino-owned businesses generate $15 billion and create jobs for 100,000 workers. These passionate entrepreneurs are the heart and pride of their communities. I see them in communities all across Illinois. Let me tell you about some of them. In Chicagoland, Latino community and business leaders have created programs such as the Food for Hope Program and the Big Shoulders Fund to distribute free food to families who are hungry because of economic hardships related to the pandemic. Pedro Perez owns his own maintenance company, PCY General Services. He and his daughter are part of a team that diligently disinfects Esperanza Health Centers on the Southwest Side of Chicago to make sure that the space is safe for families and for the medical professionals who work there. What is even more remarkable is that he does all of this without charge. Why? Pedro says, with a smile, because ``it's his community.'' Every day, in every community in Illinois and every corner of America, you can find stories like theirs. The beauty and richness of the Latino community goes beyond food and traditions. At the heart of the Latino community is an exceptionally resilient spirit that has sustained them through history and is helping to sustain America today through the most severe health and economic crises most of us has ever experienced. I am honored to represent so many of these hard-working families in my State and look forward to see how they continue to inspire us to keep building a better America for everyone. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-10-05-pt1-PgS6035-2 | null | 1,501 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been said that the United States is like a brilliant tapestry woven from a dazzling array of colors and patterns into a unique whole. If that is true, then the contributions of Hispanics are surely among the largest and most vibrant swaths in our rich national tapestry, and Hispanic Heritage Month is a good time to reflect on those contributions. This celebration runs each year from mid-September to mid-October. The dates were chosen to coincide with the dates in which several Latin American nations--including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Chile--celebrate their own independence from colonial rule. This national celebration used to be just a week long, but in 1988, Congress wisely and unanimously voted to expand Hispanic Heritage Week to Hispanic Heritage Month. The legislation was sponsored by Congressman Esteban Torres and my friend and political mentor, Senator Paul Simon. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a proud, conservative Republican who understood that America's heritage as a nation of immigrants is one of our greatest sources of strength--economically, politically, culturally and morally. The contributions and influence of Latinos on our Nation has grown dramatically in the three decades since the establishment of Hispanic Heritage Month. Today there are more than 60 million Latinos in the U.S. Illinois is proud to be home to one of the largest Latino populations in the country, including many people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Guatemalan heritage. Latinos and Latinas are leaders in every walk of life, including business, the arts, sciences, education, sports, entertainment, and public service. A ``wise Latina,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now serves on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ellen Ochoa, an engineer and the first Latina astronaut, is now director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. Latinas are literally helping America reach for the stars. In my home State of Illinois, Dr. Juan Andrade, Jr., is the president of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, based in Chicago. He and his organization are doing critical work to educate and motivate Latinos to vote and to fill out the Census, ensuring that Latinos are seen and their voices heard. Alexis Esparza is president of Economic Strategies Development Corporation. For nearly half a century, his organization, ESDC, has worked in the Pilsen community of Chicago to preserve historic buildings, build affordable new housing, and help create new commercial and industrial economic development opportunities. They are part of a long and proud tradition of Hispanic men and women whose work has made America's economy more prosperous and fairer for all of us. Many Americans know the names Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. In 1966, these two brave labor leaders helped organize farm workers in Delano, CA, to form the United Farm Workers of America. Standing together, backed by their union, the farm workers were able to strike for higher wages, safer working conditions, and protections for women farm workers from sexual violence. Far fewer people recognize the name Guadalupe Marshall. She is also a hero for workers' rights. Let me tell you about her. On Memorial Day 1937, 10 unarmed union demonstrators from Republic Steele were shot down by police in Chicago. Lupe Marshall, who had immigrated to America from Mexico when she was 10 years old, was one of the people attending that strike. She was a mother of three and a volunteer social worker at the Jane Addams Hull House. The ``Memorial Day Massacre'' is how many history books label the carnage at Republic Steele. Three weeks after the killings, Lupe Marshall travelled to Washington, DC, to testify before the Senate about what she had witnessed. She described placing herself on the front line when shots rang out and then turning to see many people lying face down on the ground. She ran, but she was clubbed in the head and arrested. Her courage helped to build support among the American people and in Congress for laws to help working people stand together for fair wages, safe working conditions, and civil rights. During this Hispanic Heritage Month, we are especially aware of the enormous contributions that Hispanic Americans continue to make to America's economy. Sadly, we know that this COVID-19 pandemic is taking a disproportionate toll on Black and Brown Americans. Nationwide, Latinos are being hospitalized with COVID-19 at more than 4\1/2\ times the rate of White people. In Illinois and several other States, Latinos have the highest COVID-19 infection rates of any ethnic group. COVID-19 is also threatening the livelihoods of Latinos throughout the US. Almost 60 percent of Latino households have experienced job loss or wage reductions during this pandemic. At the same time, our Nation is relying heavily on Latinos, both citizens and immigrants, to help steer us safely through this pandemic. Latinos are working on the frontlines of this pandemic as doctors, nurses, and home healthcare workers. They are also working around the clock, behind the scenes, to disinfect our workplaces, schools, stores, and health centers. Latino farm workers continue to work in the fields and in packing plants, harvesting, and preparing the food that keeps us fed. Despite the virus and, now, the thick smoke of wildfires blanketing much of the west coast, they remain on the job. Latinos are working as grocery clerks, teachers, postal employees, servicemembers, and other ``essential worker jobs.'' Many of these heroic essential workers are immigrants, and many are Dreamers. They continue to work and serve in their communities while their own status remains in limbo. Latino-owned businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of America's economy. Nationwide, nearly 1-in-4 newly created businesses today are Latino-owned. More than 4 million Latino-owned businesses provide jobs for 2.7 million workers. Together, these businesses pump over $700 billion into America's economy. In Illinois, 120,000 Latino-owned businesses generate $15 billion and create jobs for 100,000 workers. These passionate entrepreneurs are the heart and pride of their communities. I see them in communities all across Illinois. Let me tell you about some of them. In Chicagoland, Latino community and business leaders have created programs such as the Food for Hope Program and the Big Shoulders Fund to distribute free food to families who are hungry because of economic hardships related to the pandemic. Pedro Perez owns his own maintenance company, PCY General Services. He and his daughter are part of a team that diligently disinfects Esperanza Health Centers on the Southwest Side of Chicago to make sure that the space is safe for families and for the medical professionals who work there. What is even more remarkable is that he does all of this without charge. Why? Pedro says, with a smile, because ``it's his community.'' Every day, in every community in Illinois and every corner of America, you can find stories like theirs. The beauty and richness of the Latino community goes beyond food and traditions. At the heart of the Latino community is an exceptionally resilient spirit that has sustained them through history and is helping to sustain America today through the most severe health and economic crises most of us has ever experienced. I am honored to represent so many of these hard-working families in my State and look forward to see how they continue to inspire us to keep building a better America for everyone. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-10-05-pt1-PgS6035-2 | null | 1,502 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been said that the United States is like a brilliant tapestry woven from a dazzling array of colors and patterns into a unique whole. If that is true, then the contributions of Hispanics are surely among the largest and most vibrant swaths in our rich national tapestry, and Hispanic Heritage Month is a good time to reflect on those contributions. This celebration runs each year from mid-September to mid-October. The dates were chosen to coincide with the dates in which several Latin American nations--including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Chile--celebrate their own independence from colonial rule. This national celebration used to be just a week long, but in 1988, Congress wisely and unanimously voted to expand Hispanic Heritage Week to Hispanic Heritage Month. The legislation was sponsored by Congressman Esteban Torres and my friend and political mentor, Senator Paul Simon. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a proud, conservative Republican who understood that America's heritage as a nation of immigrants is one of our greatest sources of strength--economically, politically, culturally and morally. The contributions and influence of Latinos on our Nation has grown dramatically in the three decades since the establishment of Hispanic Heritage Month. Today there are more than 60 million Latinos in the U.S. Illinois is proud to be home to one of the largest Latino populations in the country, including many people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Guatemalan heritage. Latinos and Latinas are leaders in every walk of life, including business, the arts, sciences, education, sports, entertainment, and public service. A ``wise Latina,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now serves on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ellen Ochoa, an engineer and the first Latina astronaut, is now director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. Latinas are literally helping America reach for the stars. In my home State of Illinois, Dr. Juan Andrade, Jr., is the president of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, based in Chicago. He and his organization are doing critical work to educate and motivate Latinos to vote and to fill out the Census, ensuring that Latinos are seen and their voices heard. Alexis Esparza is president of Economic Strategies Development Corporation. For nearly half a century, his organization, ESDC, has worked in the Pilsen community of Chicago to preserve historic buildings, build affordable new housing, and help create new commercial and industrial economic development opportunities. They are part of a long and proud tradition of Hispanic men and women whose work has made America's economy more prosperous and fairer for all of us. Many Americans know the names Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. In 1966, these two brave labor leaders helped organize farm workers in Delano, CA, to form the United Farm Workers of America. Standing together, backed by their union, the farm workers were able to strike for higher wages, safer working conditions, and protections for women farm workers from sexual violence. Far fewer people recognize the name Guadalupe Marshall. She is also a hero for workers' rights. Let me tell you about her. On Memorial Day 1937, 10 unarmed union demonstrators from Republic Steele were shot down by police in Chicago. Lupe Marshall, who had immigrated to America from Mexico when she was 10 years old, was one of the people attending that strike. She was a mother of three and a volunteer social worker at the Jane Addams Hull House. The ``Memorial Day Massacre'' is how many history books label the carnage at Republic Steele. Three weeks after the killings, Lupe Marshall travelled to Washington, DC, to testify before the Senate about what she had witnessed. She described placing herself on the front line when shots rang out and then turning to see many people lying face down on the ground. She ran, but she was clubbed in the head and arrested. Her courage helped to build support among the American people and in Congress for laws to help working people stand together for fair wages, safe working conditions, and civil rights. During this Hispanic Heritage Month, we are especially aware of the enormous contributions that Hispanic Americans continue to make to America's economy. Sadly, we know that this COVID-19 pandemic is taking a disproportionate toll on Black and Brown Americans. Nationwide, Latinos are being hospitalized with COVID-19 at more than 4\1/2\ times the rate of White people. In Illinois and several other States, Latinos have the highest COVID-19 infection rates of any ethnic group. COVID-19 is also threatening the livelihoods of Latinos throughout the US. Almost 60 percent of Latino households have experienced job loss or wage reductions during this pandemic. At the same time, our Nation is relying heavily on Latinos, both citizens and immigrants, to help steer us safely through this pandemic. Latinos are working on the frontlines of this pandemic as doctors, nurses, and home healthcare workers. They are also working around the clock, behind the scenes, to disinfect our workplaces, schools, stores, and health centers. Latino farm workers continue to work in the fields and in packing plants, harvesting, and preparing the food that keeps us fed. Despite the virus and, now, the thick smoke of wildfires blanketing much of the west coast, they remain on the job. Latinos are working as grocery clerks, teachers, postal employees, servicemembers, and other ``essential worker jobs.'' Many of these heroic essential workers are immigrants, and many are Dreamers. They continue to work and serve in their communities while their own status remains in limbo. Latino-owned businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of America's economy. Nationwide, nearly 1-in-4 newly created businesses today are Latino-owned. More than 4 million Latino-owned businesses provide jobs for 2.7 million workers. Together, these businesses pump over $700 billion into America's economy. In Illinois, 120,000 Latino-owned businesses generate $15 billion and create jobs for 100,000 workers. These passionate entrepreneurs are the heart and pride of their communities. I see them in communities all across Illinois. Let me tell you about some of them. In Chicagoland, Latino community and business leaders have created programs such as the Food for Hope Program and the Big Shoulders Fund to distribute free food to families who are hungry because of economic hardships related to the pandemic. Pedro Perez owns his own maintenance company, PCY General Services. He and his daughter are part of a team that diligently disinfects Esperanza Health Centers on the Southwest Side of Chicago to make sure that the space is safe for families and for the medical professionals who work there. What is even more remarkable is that he does all of this without charge. Why? Pedro says, with a smile, because ``it's his community.'' Every day, in every community in Illinois and every corner of America, you can find stories like theirs. The beauty and richness of the Latino community goes beyond food and traditions. At the heart of the Latino community is an exceptionally resilient spirit that has sustained them through history and is helping to sustain America today through the most severe health and economic crises most of us has ever experienced. I am honored to represent so many of these hard-working families in my State and look forward to see how they continue to inspire us to keep building a better America for everyone. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-10-05-pt1-PgS6035-2 | null | 1,503 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been said that the United States is like a brilliant tapestry woven from a dazzling array of colors and patterns into a unique whole. If that is true, then the contributions of Hispanics are surely among the largest and most vibrant swaths in our rich national tapestry, and Hispanic Heritage Month is a good time to reflect on those contributions. This celebration runs each year from mid-September to mid-October. The dates were chosen to coincide with the dates in which several Latin American nations--including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Chile--celebrate their own independence from colonial rule. This national celebration used to be just a week long, but in 1988, Congress wisely and unanimously voted to expand Hispanic Heritage Week to Hispanic Heritage Month. The legislation was sponsored by Congressman Esteban Torres and my friend and political mentor, Senator Paul Simon. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a proud, conservative Republican who understood that America's heritage as a nation of immigrants is one of our greatest sources of strength--economically, politically, culturally and morally. The contributions and influence of Latinos on our Nation has grown dramatically in the three decades since the establishment of Hispanic Heritage Month. Today there are more than 60 million Latinos in the U.S. Illinois is proud to be home to one of the largest Latino populations in the country, including many people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Guatemalan heritage. Latinos and Latinas are leaders in every walk of life, including business, the arts, sciences, education, sports, entertainment, and public service. A ``wise Latina,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, now serves on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ellen Ochoa, an engineer and the first Latina astronaut, is now director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. Latinas are literally helping America reach for the stars. In my home State of Illinois, Dr. Juan Andrade, Jr., is the president of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, based in Chicago. He and his organization are doing critical work to educate and motivate Latinos to vote and to fill out the Census, ensuring that Latinos are seen and their voices heard. Alexis Esparza is president of Economic Strategies Development Corporation. For nearly half a century, his organization, ESDC, has worked in the Pilsen community of Chicago to preserve historic buildings, build affordable new housing, and help create new commercial and industrial economic development opportunities. They are part of a long and proud tradition of Hispanic men and women whose work has made America's economy more prosperous and fairer for all of us. Many Americans know the names Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. In 1966, these two brave labor leaders helped organize farm workers in Delano, CA, to form the United Farm Workers of America. Standing together, backed by their union, the farm workers were able to strike for higher wages, safer working conditions, and protections for women farm workers from sexual violence. Far fewer people recognize the name Guadalupe Marshall. She is also a hero for workers' rights. Let me tell you about her. On Memorial Day 1937, 10 unarmed union demonstrators from Republic Steele were shot down by police in Chicago. Lupe Marshall, who had immigrated to America from Mexico when she was 10 years old, was one of the people attending that strike. She was a mother of three and a volunteer social worker at the Jane Addams Hull House. The ``Memorial Day Massacre'' is how many history books label the carnage at Republic Steele. Three weeks after the killings, Lupe Marshall travelled to Washington, DC, to testify before the Senate about what she had witnessed. She described placing herself on the front line when shots rang out and then turning to see many people lying face down on the ground. She ran, but she was clubbed in the head and arrested. Her courage helped to build support among the American people and in Congress for laws to help working people stand together for fair wages, safe working conditions, and civil rights. During this Hispanic Heritage Month, we are especially aware of the enormous contributions that Hispanic Americans continue to make to America's economy. Sadly, we know that this COVID-19 pandemic is taking a disproportionate toll on Black and Brown Americans. Nationwide, Latinos are being hospitalized with COVID-19 at more than 4\1/2\ times the rate of White people. In Illinois and several other States, Latinos have the highest COVID-19 infection rates of any ethnic group. COVID-19 is also threatening the livelihoods of Latinos throughout the US. Almost 60 percent of Latino households have experienced job loss or wage reductions during this pandemic. At the same time, our Nation is relying heavily on Latinos, both citizens and immigrants, to help steer us safely through this pandemic. Latinos are working on the frontlines of this pandemic as doctors, nurses, and home healthcare workers. They are also working around the clock, behind the scenes, to disinfect our workplaces, schools, stores, and health centers. Latino farm workers continue to work in the fields and in packing plants, harvesting, and preparing the food that keeps us fed. Despite the virus and, now, the thick smoke of wildfires blanketing much of the west coast, they remain on the job. Latinos are working as grocery clerks, teachers, postal employees, servicemembers, and other ``essential worker jobs.'' Many of these heroic essential workers are immigrants, and many are Dreamers. They continue to work and serve in their communities while their own status remains in limbo. Latino-owned businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of America's economy. Nationwide, nearly 1-in-4 newly created businesses today are Latino-owned. More than 4 million Latino-owned businesses provide jobs for 2.7 million workers. Together, these businesses pump over $700 billion into America's economy. In Illinois, 120,000 Latino-owned businesses generate $15 billion and create jobs for 100,000 workers. These passionate entrepreneurs are the heart and pride of their communities. I see them in communities all across Illinois. Let me tell you about some of them. In Chicagoland, Latino community and business leaders have created programs such as the Food for Hope Program and the Big Shoulders Fund to distribute free food to families who are hungry because of economic hardships related to the pandemic. Pedro Perez owns his own maintenance company, PCY General Services. He and his daughter are part of a team that diligently disinfects Esperanza Health Centers on the Southwest Side of Chicago to make sure that the space is safe for families and for the medical professionals who work there. What is even more remarkable is that he does all of this without charge. Why? Pedro says, with a smile, because ``it's his community.'' Every day, in every community in Illinois and every corner of America, you can find stories like theirs. The beauty and richness of the Latino community goes beyond food and traditions. At the heart of the Latino community is an exceptionally resilient spirit that has sustained them through history and is helping to sustain America today through the most severe health and economic crises most of us has ever experienced. I am honored to represent so many of these hard-working families in my State and look forward to see how they continue to inspire us to keep building a better America for everyone. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-10-05-pt1-PgS6035-2 | null | 1,504 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to the proud Michigan residents who have served in our Nation's military and their families. When our country was at risk of fracturing in a brutal Civil War, the people of Michigan volunteered. When fascism threatened freedom around the world, the people of Michigan fought back. And when faced with new dangers--from terrorism to pandemic diseases--the people of Michigan remain willing to put our lives on the line on behalf of the American people. Whenever and wherever our Nation needs us, the people of Michigan always respond. In some families, this spirit of service stretches back generations. The Armsteads are one such Michigan family. Peter Armstead was originally from England, but when his new Nation needed him, he answered the call. He fought during the Civil Warand barely survived his time in a Confederate prisoner of war camp in Mississippi. Earl Armstead, Peter's grandson, served in France during World War I, where he was put in charge of destroying enemy bridges. He came home suffering from post-traumatic stress and, like so many of our veterans, struggled to talk about what he had seen. And Robert Armstead, Earl's nephew, also fought in Europe during World War II. He served in the Tank Destroyer Battalion and took part in the Po Valley campaign in Italy. His unit was being readied for the Pacific Campaign when the war ended. All three of these veterans were willing to sacrifice everything in defense of our Nation. This past August, a grateful nation honored them with side-by-side burials at Great Lakes National Cemetery in Holly. Dr. Robert Armstead II, Robert's son, worked to make this historic interment happen. He believes veterans deserve to be remembered and honored for their service. I couldn't agree more. My own father, who served during World War II, always told me that veterans should not stand at the back of any line. Our Nation must keep its promises to our heroes who have served, whether it is healthcare, education, a chance at a good job, the military recognitions they earned in service, or a place of honor in our national cemeteries, places that Robert Armstead II calls ``sacred holy ground.'' On this Veterans Day and every day, I salute all of Michigan's veterans past and present. I salute their families, who sacrifice alongside them and help ensure that their stories are never forgotten. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. STABENOW | Senate | CREC-2020-10-05-pt1-PgS6036-2 | null | 1,505 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President; I was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1980 and then the Senate in 1996. I have enjoyed the privilege of becoming the longest serving member of Congress in the history of the Sunflower State and representing Kansans in Washington, DC, for 40 years. It has been an amazing ride, a great partnership in government and many people have been a tremendous help to Franki and me. We want to say a heartfelt thank you to all the friends we have made along the way. My first boss in public service was a true gentleman from Concordia named Frank Carlson. Senator Carlson was the first person to hit the political trifecta and serve our State as Senator, Congressman, and Governor. The always modest Senator Carlson routinely said, ``There are no self-made men or women in public service; it is your friends, family and staff who make you what you are.'' Through the years I have repeated Senator Carlson's words on many occasions, and I truly believe that Members of Congress are only as good as their staff. Well, I have been blessed because, for four decades, I believe that I have had the best staff both in Kansas and on Capitol Hill. While I could offer a long list of current and former aides who have truly made a difference for Kansas and America, there are three unique, humble, and accomplished individuals who deserve special recognition. Mel Thompson, Gilda Lintz, and Kay Sharp have all served quietly and effectively behind the scenes on my Kansas staff for nearly a quarter century. First, there is Mel Thompson who serves as my State agriculture representative. Actually, Mel and I first worked together on the Washington staff of First District Congressman Keith Sebelius in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Mel has taught me a lot about agriculture and even more about people. Nobody is better at listening to frustrated farmers and ranchers and few know more about the complex and often burdensome regulations offered by USDA and EPA. This incredible knowledge and Mel's neighborly presence led to well-deserved recognition by the Kansas Farm Bureau who honored Mel with a Distinguished Service to Agriculture award. Mel has been a strong advocate for me and, in fact, a brother. Next, there is Gilda Lintz who serves as the district director in my Topeka office. Gilda is what we call a casework specialist, serving as the court of last resort when communication has broken down between a Kansan and a government agency. Gilda has invested her heart and soul into assisting veterans to obtain service awards or unrealized benefits. Additionally, Gilda has led my service academy nomination board that meets each October to identify the best and brightest Kansans capable of graduating from our Nation's military academies and defending our Nation. I call her ``golden.'' Thank you, Gilda, for nurturing America's heroes. You are a true ``Kansas treasure. I also want to recognize Kay Sharp who serves as my State casework and outreach director. Kay joined my staff after a stint with Senator Nancy Kassebaum and has been a steady and dependable rock in the Overland Park office since 1997. Like Mel and Gilda, Kay is the foundation of Team Roberts. Kay leads my state casework effort and has helped countless Kansans obtain last minute passports, crucial IRS refund checks, and meaningful social security disability payments. More recently, like she did after 9-11, Kay worked after hours and late into the morning on weekends to ensure Americans were able to re-enter the country during COVID-related travel interruptions. Most of all, Kay is someone who I could count on for frank advice and counsel. She always gives you the unvarnished truth, and for that, I am grateful. Finally, I want to say a word about my longtime State director and now chief of staff, Chad Tenpenny. Chad has been out there riding shotgun, covering all 105 counties, with me since my early days in the Senate. We have covered almost every inch of the State, from the Cimarron National Grasslands in Morton County to the eastern border in Wyandotte County. The people of Kansas know and respect Chad and depend on him as a direct link to the Federal Government. His steady dependable leadership in the State has been a gift to me and to all Kansans over the years. As a proud U.S. Marine, where I learned that I could achieve more than I ever thought I really could, I am constantly urging my staff to ``sprint to the finish line'' and ``take the Hill.'' Mel, Gilda, and Kay have done a lot of sprinting and climbing through the years. Together, we have made Kansas a better place, and for that, I am proud. Semper Fi. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROBERTS | Senate | CREC-2020-10-05-pt1-PgS6037 | null | 1,506 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the resignation of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), the whole number of the House is 430. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2020-10-06-pt1-PgH5671-6 | null | 1,507 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The Speaker announced her signature to enrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles: S. 209.--An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294.--An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 490.--An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743.--An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785.--An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 832.--An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881.--An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321.--An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380.--An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. S. 1646.--An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661.--An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9--8--8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072.--An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-06-pt1-PgH5671-8 | null | 1,508 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The Speaker announced her signature to enrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles: S. 209.--An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294.--An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 490.--An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743.--An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785.--An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 832.--An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881.--An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321.--An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380.--An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. S. 1646.--An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661.--An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9--8--8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072.--An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-06-pt1-PgH5671-8 | null | 1,509 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-5414. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a notification that the Department has entered into a contract with a federally funded research and development center, pursuant to Public Law 116-92, Sec. 1058; (133 Stat. 1594); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5415. A letter from the Director, Naval Reactors, transmitting the Executive Summary of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program's latest reports on environmental monitoring and radioactive waste disposal, radiation exposure, and occupational safety and health; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5416. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting a Report to Congress: State Submission of Annual Progress and Services Reports, Health Care Oversight and Coordination Plans Following Enactment of Public Law 115-123, the Family First Prevention Services Act, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 676(e); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, Sec. 476 (as amended by Public Law 115-123, Sec. 50743(b)); (132 Stat. 260); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5417. A letter from the Chief Executive Officer, United States Anti-Doping Agency, transmitting the Agency's 2019 Annual Report and Financial Audit, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 2002(b); Public Law 109-469, Sec. 702(b); (120 Stat. 3534); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5418. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the semiannual report detailing payments made to Cuba as a result of the provision of telecommunications services pursuant to Department of the Treasury specific licenses, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(6); Public Law 102-484, Sec. 1705(e)(6) (as amended by Public Law 104-114, Sec. 102(g)); (110 Stat. 794); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5419. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Libya that was declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, 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. EC-5420. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism that was declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, 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. EC-5421. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to significant foreign narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia declared in Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, 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. EC-5422. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the situation in and in relation to Syria a that was declared in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019, 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. EC-5423. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, 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. EC-5424. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Zimbabwe that was declared in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003, 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. EC-5425. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Ukraine that was declared in Executive order 13660 of March 6, 2014, 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. EC-5426. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Venezuela that was declared in Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, 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. EC-5427. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting notification that the national emergency declared with respect to the situation in and in relation to Syria in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019, is to continue in effect beyond October 14, 2020, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1622(d); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 202(d); (90 Stat. 1257) (H. Doc. No. 116--159); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. EC-5428. A letter from the General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting the 2020 annual report, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(6); August 29, 1935, ch. 812, Sec. 7(b)(6) (as amended by Public Law 97-35, Sec. 1122); (95 Stat. 638); jointly to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means. EC-5429. A letter from the General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting the Board's budget request for Fiscal Year 2022; jointly to the Committees on Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-09-pt1-PgH5675-6 | null | 1,510 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, October 16, 2020. Dear Madam Speaker: To facilitate application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I am transmitting an updated status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2020. This status report is current through September 30, 2020, the end of the fiscal year. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. Table 1 compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues to the overall limits filed in the Congressional Record on May 3, 2019, as adjusted, for fiscal year 2020. These comparisons are needed to implement section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which establishes a rule enforceable with a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. Table 2 compares the current status of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2020 with the section 302(b) suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The table also provides supplementary information on spending authorized in excess of the base discretionary spending limits under section 25l(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Table 3 compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for legislative action completed by each authorizing committee with the limits filed in the Congressional Record on May 3, 2019, for fiscal year 2020. These comparisons are needed to enforce the point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which prohibits the consideration of measures that would breach the section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(c), which provides an exception for committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). Table 4 displays the current level of advance appropriations in fiscal year 2020 appropriations bills. This table is needed to enforce a rule against appropriations bills containing advance appropriations that: (i) are not identified in the statement of the Chairman published in the Congressional Record on May 3, 2019 or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in section 2 of H. Res. 293. In addition, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office is attached that summarizes and compares the budget impact of legislation enacted after May 3, 2019 against the budget aggregate in force. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Wheelock or Raquel Spencer. Sincerely, John Yarmuth, Chairman.TABLE 1.--REPORT TO THE SPEAKER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, STATUS | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-16-pt1-PgH5685-6 | null | 1,511 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, October 16, 2020. Dear Madam Speaker: To facilitate application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I am transmitting an updated status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2021. This status report is current through October 2, 2020. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. Table I compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues to the overall limits filed in the Congressional Record on May 1, 2020 for fiscal year 2021 and for the 10-year period of fiscal years 2021 through 2030. These comparisons are needed to implement section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which establishes a rule enforceable with a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2022 through 2030 because annual appropriations will not be considered for those years until future sessions of Congress. Table 2 compares the current status of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2021 with the section 302(b) suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The table also provides supplementary information on spending authorized in excess of the base discretionary spending limits under section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Table 3 compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for legislative action completed by each authorizing committee with the limits filed in the Congressional Record on May 1, 2020, for fiscal year 2021, and for the 10-year period of fiscal years 2021 through 2030. These comparisons are needed to enforce the point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which prohibits the consideration of measures that would breach the section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(c), which provides an exception for committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). In addition, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office is attached that summarizes the budget impact of legislation enacted since May 1, 2020. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Wheelock or Raquel Spencer. Sincerely, John Yarmuth, Chairman.TABLE 1.--REPORT TO THE SPEAKER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, STATUS | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-16-pt1-PgH5688 | null | 1,512 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-5440. A letter from the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the Administration's notification of its 2020 compensation program adjustments, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1833b(a); Public Law 101-73, Sec. 1206(a); (103 Stat. 523); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5441. A letter from the Chief of Negotiations and Restructuring, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting notification that the Corporation has issued an order partitioning the Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local 7 Pension Fund, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1413(b)(4); Public Law 93-406, title IV, Sec. 4233(b)(4) (as amended by Public Law 113-235, div. O, title I, Sec. 122(a)(1)); (128 Stat. 2795); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5442. A letter from the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of General Counsel, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Direct Grant Programs, State-Administered Formula Grant Programs, Non Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, Strengthening Institutions Program, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program, and Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program [Docket ID: ED-2019-OPE-0080] (RIN: 1840-AD45) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5443. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's interim final regulations -- Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures [Docket ID: ED-2020-OGC-0150] (RIN: 1801-AA22) received October 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5444. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Pension Benefit Statements----Lifetime Income Illustrations (RIN: 1210-AB20) received October 31, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5445. A letter from the Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Procedural Regulations for Issuing Guidance (RIN: 3046-AB18) received October 13, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5446. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Lump Sum Payment Assumptions (RIN: 1212-AB41) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5447. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5448. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Wyoming Underground Injection Control Program; Class VI Primacy [EPA-HQ-OW-2020- 0123; FRL-10013-68-OW] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5449. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Texas; Construction Prior to Permit Amendment Issuance [EPA- R06-OAR-2020-0159; FRL-10014-57-Region 6] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5450. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Pseudomonas fluorescens Strain ACK55; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0335; FRL-10013-27] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5451. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (19-5.B); Technical Correction for PMN P-19-24 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0495; FRL-10013- 95] (RIN: 2070-AB27) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5452. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Trichoderma asperellum, Strain T34; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0324; FRL-10013-33] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5453. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-1.5e) [EPA-HQ-OPPT- 2019-0596; FRL-10013-34] (RIN: 2070-AB27] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5454. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Implementation of the Revoked 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Updates to 40 CFR Part 52 for Areas that Attained by the Attainment Date [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0611; FRL-10013-72] (RIN: 2060-AU54) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5455. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion of the Parkersburg- Marietta, WV-OH Area Comprising Wood County [EPA-R03-OAR- 2020-0197; FRL-10014-80-Region 3] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5456. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR); Scientific Integrity [EPA-HQ-OARM-2015-0657; FRL-10012-65-OMS] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5457. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Maine; Midcoast Area and Portland Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plans for 1997 Ozone NAAQS [EPA- R01-OAR-2020-0284; FRL-10014-81-Region 1] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5458. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators [Docket No.: RM18-9-000; Order No.: 2222] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5459. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's regulatory guide -- Intent and Scope of the Physical Protection Upgrade Rule Requirements for Fixed Sites [NRC-2020-0196] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5460. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's interim staff guidance -- Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-reactors [COL-ISG-029] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5461. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a report advising that the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3538-EM in the State of Louisiana has exceeded the limit for a single emergency declaration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5193(b)(3); Public Law 93-288, Sec. 503(b)(3) (as amended by Public Law 100-707, Sec. 107(a)); (102 Stat. 4707); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5462. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a report advising that the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3540-EM in the State of Texas has exceeded the limit for a single emergency declaration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5193(b)(3); Public Law 93- 288, Sec. 503(b)(3) (as amended by Public Law 100-707, Sec. 107(a)); (102 Stat. 4707); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5463. A letter from the Administrator, FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a report advising that the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3529-EM in the State of Hawaii has exceeded the limit for a single emergency declaration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5193(b)(3); Public Law 93- 288, Sec. 503(b)(3) (as amended by Public Law 100-707, Sec. 107(a)); (102 Stat. 4707); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5464. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Horry County, SC [USCG-2020-0498] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5465. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Victoria Barge Canal, Victoria, TX [Docket Number: USCG-2020-0525] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5466. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Director, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Ocean Disposal; Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for the Southern Maine, New Hampshire, and Northern Massachusetts Coastal Region [EPA-R01-OW-2019-0521; FRL-10014-99-Region 1] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5467. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the Secretary (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Elimination of On-the-Job Training and Apprenticeship Trainee Certification (RIN: 2900-AQ61) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-5468. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the Secretary (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- VA Acquisition Regulation: Contractor Qualifications; Acquisition of Utility Services; and Contract Administration and Audit Services (RIN: 2900-AQ38) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-16-pt1-PgH5691-3 | null | 1,513 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire country heard from one of the most impressive nominees for any public office in a long time. Judge Amy Coney Barrett demonstrated that she has the deep legal expertise, dispassionate judicial temperament, and sheer intellectual horsepower the American people deserve to have on the Supreme Court. Her nomination prompted an outpouring of praise from across academia, the legal profession, and, importantly, the political spectrum. Last week, our committee colleagues saw why fellow legal scholars called Judge Barrett ``a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith'' and say she is ``tailor-made for this job.'' They heard firsthand why her former law clerks and students called her ``a woman of unassailable integrity'' and ``a role model for generations to come.'' They heard thoughtful answers that explained why the American Bar Association--an institution the Democratic leader has called ``the gold standard''--deems Judge Barrett ``well qualified'' to sit on the Supreme Court. They heard why the legal professionals behind that rating call her ``a staggering academic mind.'' The Chair of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary told the committee directly that ``in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.'' Of course, there is another way you can tell that Judge Barrett is so impressive and so qualified. It is the fact that the people who precommitted to oppose her nomination have completely retreated from arguing the merits. Virtually none of the politicians, pundits, or special interests that opposed Judge Barrett from the beginning have even tried to lay a finger on her qualifications or credentials. We have seen inaccurate claims that it would be abnormal for the Senate to fill this seat. We have seen bizarre, barely disguised insinuations about the nominee's religious faith, and now, this morning, there was improper press scrutiny of her children. We have heard Democrats try to take hostage our very institutions of government to stop this precedent-backed process from moving forward, but none of the distortions can even begin to cloud the incredible qualifications of the nominee. I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's vote on Thursday. The full Senate will turn to Judge Barrett's nomination as soon as it comes out of committee. I will be proud to vote to confirm this exceptional jurist | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6049-8 | null | 1,514 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire country heard from one of the most impressive nominees for any public office in a long time. Judge Amy Coney Barrett demonstrated that she has the deep legal expertise, dispassionate judicial temperament, and sheer intellectual horsepower the American people deserve to have on the Supreme Court. Her nomination prompted an outpouring of praise from across academia, the legal profession, and, importantly, the political spectrum. Last week, our committee colleagues saw why fellow legal scholars called Judge Barrett ``a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith'' and say she is ``tailor-made for this job.'' They heard firsthand why her former law clerks and students called her ``a woman of unassailable integrity'' and ``a role model for generations to come.'' They heard thoughtful answers that explained why the American Bar Association--an institution the Democratic leader has called ``the gold standard''--deems Judge Barrett ``well qualified'' to sit on the Supreme Court. They heard why the legal professionals behind that rating call her ``a staggering academic mind.'' The Chair of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary told the committee directly that ``in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.'' Of course, there is another way you can tell that Judge Barrett is so impressive and so qualified. It is the fact that the people who precommitted to oppose her nomination have completely retreated from arguing the merits. Virtually none of the politicians, pundits, or special interests that opposed Judge Barrett from the beginning have even tried to lay a finger on her qualifications or credentials. We have seen inaccurate claims that it would be abnormal for the Senate to fill this seat. We have seen bizarre, barely disguised insinuations about the nominee's religious faith, and now, this morning, there was improper press scrutiny of her children. We have heard Democrats try to take hostage our very institutions of government to stop this precedent-backed process from moving forward, but none of the distortions can even begin to cloud the incredible qualifications of the nominee. I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's vote on Thursday. The full Senate will turn to Judge Barrett's nomination as soon as it comes out of committee. I will be proud to vote to confirm this exceptional jurist | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6049-8 | null | 1,515 |
formal | special interests | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire country heard from one of the most impressive nominees for any public office in a long time. Judge Amy Coney Barrett demonstrated that she has the deep legal expertise, dispassionate judicial temperament, and sheer intellectual horsepower the American people deserve to have on the Supreme Court. Her nomination prompted an outpouring of praise from across academia, the legal profession, and, importantly, the political spectrum. Last week, our committee colleagues saw why fellow legal scholars called Judge Barrett ``a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith'' and say she is ``tailor-made for this job.'' They heard firsthand why her former law clerks and students called her ``a woman of unassailable integrity'' and ``a role model for generations to come.'' They heard thoughtful answers that explained why the American Bar Association--an institution the Democratic leader has called ``the gold standard''--deems Judge Barrett ``well qualified'' to sit on the Supreme Court. They heard why the legal professionals behind that rating call her ``a staggering academic mind.'' The Chair of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary told the committee directly that ``in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.'' Of course, there is another way you can tell that Judge Barrett is so impressive and so qualified. It is the fact that the people who precommitted to oppose her nomination have completely retreated from arguing the merits. Virtually none of the politicians, pundits, or special interests that opposed Judge Barrett from the beginning have even tried to lay a finger on her qualifications or credentials. We have seen inaccurate claims that it would be abnormal for the Senate to fill this seat. We have seen bizarre, barely disguised insinuations about the nominee's religious faith, and now, this morning, there was improper press scrutiny of her children. We have heard Democrats try to take hostage our very institutions of government to stop this precedent-backed process from moving forward, but none of the distortions can even begin to cloud the incredible qualifications of the nominee. I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's vote on Thursday. The full Senate will turn to Judge Barrett's nomination as soon as it comes out of committee. I will be proud to vote to confirm this exceptional jurist | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6049-8 | null | 1,516 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week the Senate will vote on more coronavirus relief that Congress could deliver to American families right now. Month after month, Speaker Pelosi has held up urgent assistance for workers, families, schools, and our healthcare system. Month after month, she has refused to set aside non-COVID-related demands and far-left policy riders that she knows are sabotaging any shot at a deal. Why? Well, because--and these are her own words--she thinks agreeing to a bipartisan compromise might make the Democrats seem like ``a cheap date''--her words. The Speaker said over and over again that she does not believe it is better for workers to get something rather than nothing. Thus far, Senate Democrats have gone along with it. We could have passed hundreds of billions of dollars in relief more than a month ago, but our Democratic colleagues voted in lockstep to filibuster relief and kill the bill. Unless Democrats got every single non-COVID-related wish-list item they were after, American families would get nothing. Every single Senate Democrat voted to filibuster hundreds of billions of dollars of noncontroversial assistance, except our colleague who is running for Vice President. So she wasn't here at all. This has been the position for months: all-or-nothing obstruction. It has to stop. The Speaker's Marie Antoinette act needs to end. Zero dollars for working families but a whole lot of television time for the Speaker of the House is not a good trade for the American people. Speaker Pelosi's supposed leverage is not putting food on the table in households where one or both parents have lost their jobs. Speaker Pelosi's so-called leverage is not helping schools reopen safely or struggling small business to avoid layoffs. The Democrats' talking points are not doing a single thing to fund more testing, more tracing, or double down on Project Warp Speed so we can produce and distribute a vaccine. Tomorrow and Wednesday, the Senate is going to vote. We will see whether our Democratic colleagues in this Chamber agree that families deserve nothing rather than something, or whether they are ready to let the Senate make law across the huge areas where we do not even disagree. Tomorrow, we will have a stand-alone vote on creating a second round of the historic Paycheck Protection Program for the hardest hit small businesses. The PPP has saved tens of millions of American jobs and kept main streets across America from turning into permanent COVID-19 ghost towns. The program is as bipartisan as it gets. Not only did it pass unanimously in the first place, but we also added funding and made tweaks several times without a single objection in either Chamber. So tomorrow, Tuesday, every Senator will cast an up-or-down vote on establishing a whole second draw of these emergency loans for the small businesses that need it the most--no more all or nothing, no more endless posturing, just one clear vote on one clear good thing that nobody even says they oppose. It would make a huge difference for workers who may otherwise be laid off. Then, on Wednesday, the Senate will vote again on a larger bill. It will pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the PPP expansion, plus more Federal unemployment insurance, more money for safe schools, more money for testing, more money for vaccines, and many other important priorities. Nobody thinks this proposal would resolve every problem forever. What it does contain is half a trillion dollars of good that Congress can do right now through programs that Democrats do not even say they oppose. American families deserve for us to agree where we can, make law, and push huge amounts of money out the door while Washington continues arguing over the rest. It is common sense. It is what the country needs. I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally let it happen. Madam President, what is the pending business? | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6050 | null | 1,517 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week the Senate will vote on more coronavirus relief that Congress could deliver to American families right now. Month after month, Speaker Pelosi has held up urgent assistance for workers, families, schools, and our healthcare system. Month after month, she has refused to set aside non-COVID-related demands and far-left policy riders that she knows are sabotaging any shot at a deal. Why? Well, because--and these are her own words--she thinks agreeing to a bipartisan compromise might make the Democrats seem like ``a cheap date''--her words. The Speaker said over and over again that she does not believe it is better for workers to get something rather than nothing. Thus far, Senate Democrats have gone along with it. We could have passed hundreds of billions of dollars in relief more than a month ago, but our Democratic colleagues voted in lockstep to filibuster relief and kill the bill. Unless Democrats got every single non-COVID-related wish-list item they were after, American families would get nothing. Every single Senate Democrat voted to filibuster hundreds of billions of dollars of noncontroversial assistance, except our colleague who is running for Vice President. So she wasn't here at all. This has been the position for months: all-or-nothing obstruction. It has to stop. The Speaker's Marie Antoinette act needs to end. Zero dollars for working families but a whole lot of television time for the Speaker of the House is not a good trade for the American people. Speaker Pelosi's supposed leverage is not putting food on the table in households where one or both parents have lost their jobs. Speaker Pelosi's so-called leverage is not helping schools reopen safely or struggling small business to avoid layoffs. The Democrats' talking points are not doing a single thing to fund more testing, more tracing, or double down on Project Warp Speed so we can produce and distribute a vaccine. Tomorrow and Wednesday, the Senate is going to vote. We will see whether our Democratic colleagues in this Chamber agree that families deserve nothing rather than something, or whether they are ready to let the Senate make law across the huge areas where we do not even disagree. Tomorrow, we will have a stand-alone vote on creating a second round of the historic Paycheck Protection Program for the hardest hit small businesses. The PPP has saved tens of millions of American jobs and kept main streets across America from turning into permanent COVID-19 ghost towns. The program is as bipartisan as it gets. Not only did it pass unanimously in the first place, but we also added funding and made tweaks several times without a single objection in either Chamber. So tomorrow, Tuesday, every Senator will cast an up-or-down vote on establishing a whole second draw of these emergency loans for the small businesses that need it the most--no more all or nothing, no more endless posturing, just one clear vote on one clear good thing that nobody even says they oppose. It would make a huge difference for workers who may otherwise be laid off. Then, on Wednesday, the Senate will vote again on a larger bill. It will pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the PPP expansion, plus more Federal unemployment insurance, more money for safe schools, more money for testing, more money for vaccines, and many other important priorities. Nobody thinks this proposal would resolve every problem forever. What it does contain is half a trillion dollars of good that Congress can do right now through programs that Democrats do not even say they oppose. American families deserve for us to agree where we can, make law, and push huge amounts of money out the door while Washington continues arguing over the rest. It is common sense. It is what the country needs. I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally let it happen. Madam President, what is the pending business? | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6050 | null | 1,518 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on October 6, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the House had passed the following bills, without amendment: S. 2638. An act to amend title 49, United State Code, to require small hub airports to construct areas for nursing mothers, and for other purposes. S. 3051. An act to improve protections for wildlife, and for other purposes. S. 3758. An act to amend the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2000 to make certain technical corrections. S. 4075. An act to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for the release of certain Federal interests in connection with certain grants under that Act, and for other purposes. S. 4762. An act to designate the airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''. Enrolled Bills Signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on October 6, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker had signed the following enrolled bills: S. 209. An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294. An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 490. An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743. An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 832. An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881. An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380. An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. S. 1646. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072. An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. H.R. 991. An act to extend certain provisions of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act until September 30, 2030, and for other purposes. H.R. 1812. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to furnish Vet Center readjustment counseling and related mental health services to certain individuals. H.R. 2372. An act to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an assessment of all memoranda of understanding and memoranda of agreement between Under Secretary of Health and non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities relating to suicide prevention and mental health services. H.R. 4779. An act to extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006, and for other purposes. H.R. 6168. An act to increase, effective as of December 1, 2020, the rates of compensation for veterans with service- connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes. Enrolled Bills Signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the following enrolled bills, previously signed by the Speaker of the House, were signed on October 6, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. McConnell): S. 490. An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743. An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 1646. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072. An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. H.R. 1812. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to furnish Vet Center readjustment counseling and related mental health services to certain individuals. H.R. 2372. An act to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an assessment of all memoranda of understanding and memoranda of agreement between Under Secretary of Health and non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities relating to suicide prevention and mental health services. H.R. 4779. An act to extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006, and for other purposes. H.R. 6168. An act to increase, effective as of December 1, 2020, the rates of compensation for veterans with service- connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes. Enrolled Bills Signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the following enrolled bills, previously signed by the Speaker of the House, were signed on October 9, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. Roberts): S. 209. An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294. An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 832. An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881. An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380. An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. H.R. 991. An act to extend certain provisions of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act until September 30, 2030, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6071-2 | null | 1,519 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on October 6, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the House had passed the following bills, without amendment: S. 2638. An act to amend title 49, United State Code, to require small hub airports to construct areas for nursing mothers, and for other purposes. S. 3051. An act to improve protections for wildlife, and for other purposes. S. 3758. An act to amend the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2000 to make certain technical corrections. S. 4075. An act to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for the release of certain Federal interests in connection with certain grants under that Act, and for other purposes. S. 4762. An act to designate the airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''. Enrolled Bills Signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on October 6, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker had signed the following enrolled bills: S. 209. An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294. An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 490. An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743. An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 832. An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881. An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380. An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. S. 1646. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072. An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. H.R. 991. An act to extend certain provisions of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act until September 30, 2030, and for other purposes. H.R. 1812. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to furnish Vet Center readjustment counseling and related mental health services to certain individuals. H.R. 2372. An act to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an assessment of all memoranda of understanding and memoranda of agreement between Under Secretary of Health and non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities relating to suicide prevention and mental health services. H.R. 4779. An act to extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006, and for other purposes. H.R. 6168. An act to increase, effective as of December 1, 2020, the rates of compensation for veterans with service- connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes. Enrolled Bills Signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the following enrolled bills, previously signed by the Speaker of the House, were signed on October 6, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. McConnell): S. 490. An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743. An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 1646. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072. An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. H.R. 1812. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to furnish Vet Center readjustment counseling and related mental health services to certain individuals. H.R. 2372. An act to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an assessment of all memoranda of understanding and memoranda of agreement between Under Secretary of Health and non-Department of Veterans Affairs entities relating to suicide prevention and mental health services. H.R. 4779. An act to extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006, and for other purposes. H.R. 6168. An act to increase, effective as of December 1, 2020, the rates of compensation for veterans with service- connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes. Enrolled Bills Signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the following enrolled bills, previously signed by the Speaker of the House, were signed on October 9, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. Roberts): S. 209. An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294. An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 832. An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881. An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380. An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. H.R. 991. An act to extend certain provisions of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act until September 30, 2030, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6071-2 | null | 1,520 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The Secretary of the Senate reported that on October 6, 2020, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: S. 490. An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743. An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 1646. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072. An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. The Secretary of the Senate reported that on October 9, 2020, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: S. 209. An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294. An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 832. An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881. An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380. An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6073 | null | 1,521 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The Secretary of the Senate reported that on October 6, 2020, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: S. 490. An act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 743. An act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 1646. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 2661. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. S. 4072. An act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. The Secretary of the Senate reported that on October 9, 2020, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: S. 209. An act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 294. An act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 832. An act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 881. An act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1321. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. S. 1380. An act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt1-PgS6073 | null | 1,522 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, COVID-19 has changed just about every aspect of American life--every aspect. The bottom line is very simple: The way Americans work, the way we send our kids to school, and the way we run our businesses have all changed. COVID has derailed the economy. Millions of Americans have missed the rent, missed the mortgage, applied for unemployment, been forced to skip meals. American poverty is beginning to increase more dramatically. More than 8 million have gotten sick. More than 220,000 have died. The response here in Congress to a pandemic that affects our country in a way we haven't seen in decades should be to comprehensively provide relief. Our mission is not to pick out one or two industries and say ``maybe later'' to the rest. We can't privilege a small issue here or there and ask everyone else to wait. Our mission is to deliver big for a country and a people who are suffering direly. Our mission is to meet the needs of the country and leave no one--and leave no one--behind. But Leader McConnell and the Republican majority have failed to grasp the gravity of this situation from the beginning. They put the Senate on pause for more than 5 months, while cases went up and the death toll mounted. When the time came for them to pull together in August, they couldn't even get Republican Senators to agree on one. Eight months into this long and brutal crisis, the Republican leader is filled with stunts and playing the smallest of small ball, when so many are hurting. Today, the Republican majority will try to force a stunt--not even a real vote on a bill--but it leaves almost the entire country out of the picture. They are holding the vote over a backdrop of a dire increase in cases. The majority of States are seeing spikes right now. Half of all States have had their highest single day ever in total cases in the last month. Experts say we have hard months ahead of us. It is possible the worst is yet to come--a second wave. We must act now to provide relief to the whole country, and our Republican leader and the Republican Senate are up to a stunt and not even negotiating or putting a bill on the floor, and the American people know it. They know who is to blame. They blame President Trump and the Republican majority. We know that. We know, when it comes to COVID, that the blame correctly falls on the shoulders of Leader McConnell and all his Republican Senators, who are afraid to do anything, who are divided. Anytime Mr. Mnuchin gets on the phone with them, they say: Don't do anything. We are too divided. Everyone knows that. We must provide real relief. That is what Democrats want to do. But in the Republican proposal today, there is no funding--zero funding--for testing or tracing, the best way to stop this COVID menace. And in the Republican bill tomorrow, the funding for testing and the plan for testing is so completely inadequate that it is laughable, especially given the recent spike in cases. In the Republican proposal today, there is nothing for American families, schools, daycare, or food assistance. They are left behind--all of them. Renters, homeowners, folks struggling to keep a roof over their heads--they are left behind. Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own and need unemployment insurance--they are left behind in these Republican proposals. State and local governments that are being forced to slash critical public service in the middle of a recession--they, too, are all left behind. Even on the issue of small business, the issue on which this bill is focused, it lacks specific funding for restaurants, for independent theaters and venues, for local newspapers, TV, radio stations, critical-need hospitals, minority-owned businesses, and all of ournonprofits. In each of those areas in which the Republican bill is deficient, so many are left behind. We have bipartisan support for programs that are not even being considered here today. And why is that? Why is McConnell doing stunts? The truth is, because the leader can't pass anything on the floor, he is resorting to a series of political stunts. That is all. Everyone knows it. The Republican leader himself admitted that as many as 20 Republican Senators don't want to vote for ``a dime more''--``a dime more,'' his quote--of relief for the American people--so out of touch, so callous, so cruel. So what we have here is a series of show stunt votes designed to fail because the Republicans want them to fail. It is not going to get the job done for the American people. They can't even put a real bill on the floor. The only bills that they can pass are filled with poison pills that they know no Democrat will support in the House or Senate. That was the only way they could get them to vote even for this meager amount in tomorrow's bill--by telling the big corporations: No liability for you if you egregiously hurt a worker who has COVID; by telling wealthy parents: You can pay for private school education with a complete tax break--free, free, but public schools get left out, middle class people get left out, poor people get left out. Wealthy people who send their kids to private schools--that is it--while they refuse to give money to the public schools that need the money. If Leader McConnell were serious, you know what he would be doing. He would be negotiating. He wouldn't be saying: I can't negotiate; my caucus is divided. He would be leading instead of following the 20 hard-right, cruel, callous thoughts of those who don't want to spend any money because their wealthy paymasters don't want to pay taxes: Let people suffer. I don't want to pay taxes. Let people suffer. I don't want government to do anything--when we all know the only real hope here is for a strong, active, and bold government-led program. The private sector can't fight COVID alone. The private sector can't get us out of this deep recession alone. We know that, but not the hard-right Republicans. They are stuck in their narrow ideological prison. So instead of stunts, Senators will actually have a chance today to vote on a real comprehensive bill to address the current state of the country. For months, Democrats have been pushing for the Heroes Act, a second installment of the kind of comprehensive COVID relief we passed in the first bill that brought so much to people, helped them stay in their homes, brought pandemic unemployment insurance, helped our hospitals, helped our local governments, helped do some testing--testing money, by the way, and tracing money, which the Trump administration hasn't even distributed to the States. This bill passed the House over 3 months ago, and since then, Democrats have modified the bill to move closer to our Republican counterparts. Still, Leader McConnell refuses to even bring it up for a vote in the Senate. So today Democrats will move to have the Senate take a vote on the Heroes Act, a comprehensive bill that does so much, that doesn't leave all the people behind that this proposal does. We will see where every Republican Senator stands on real COVID relief--not a stunt, a fake that leaves people out. Unlike the partisan, emaciated Republican COVID relief bill, the Heroes Act will not leave large portions of the country behind. It will not include poison pills like sweeping corporate immunity provisions that Leader McConnell has insisted on in every version of Republican legislation. It will deliver actual relief to American workers, American families, American States and localities and Tribes. It provides assistance for food, rent, and housing; real funding for testing and tracing; unemployment insurance and aid to small businesses of all kinds, not just a few. This morning, a poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena Research showed that 72 percent of Americans, including a clear majority of Independents and Republicans, support another $2 trillion stimulus package. In other words, 72 percent support the Democratic plan to provide COVID relief. Even President Trump has told our Republican Senate colleagues to ``go big or go home.'' If my Republican colleagues were listening to the American people, they would not be playing these partisan games around small-bore, stunt-driven COVID bills. They would be working with Democrats on something that absolutely meets people's needs. Instead, the Republican leader is wasting the American people's time on a vote he knows will fail, and he doesn't even seem to mind. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6304-2 | null | 1,523 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, COVID-19 has changed just about every aspect of American life--every aspect. The bottom line is very simple: The way Americans work, the way we send our kids to school, and the way we run our businesses have all changed. COVID has derailed the economy. Millions of Americans have missed the rent, missed the mortgage, applied for unemployment, been forced to skip meals. American poverty is beginning to increase more dramatically. More than 8 million have gotten sick. More than 220,000 have died. The response here in Congress to a pandemic that affects our country in a way we haven't seen in decades should be to comprehensively provide relief. Our mission is not to pick out one or two industries and say ``maybe later'' to the rest. We can't privilege a small issue here or there and ask everyone else to wait. Our mission is to deliver big for a country and a people who are suffering direly. Our mission is to meet the needs of the country and leave no one--and leave no one--behind. But Leader McConnell and the Republican majority have failed to grasp the gravity of this situation from the beginning. They put the Senate on pause for more than 5 months, while cases went up and the death toll mounted. When the time came for them to pull together in August, they couldn't even get Republican Senators to agree on one. Eight months into this long and brutal crisis, the Republican leader is filled with stunts and playing the smallest of small ball, when so many are hurting. Today, the Republican majority will try to force a stunt--not even a real vote on a bill--but it leaves almost the entire country out of the picture. They are holding the vote over a backdrop of a dire increase in cases. The majority of States are seeing spikes right now. Half of all States have had their highest single day ever in total cases in the last month. Experts say we have hard months ahead of us. It is possible the worst is yet to come--a second wave. We must act now to provide relief to the whole country, and our Republican leader and the Republican Senate are up to a stunt and not even negotiating or putting a bill on the floor, and the American people know it. They know who is to blame. They blame President Trump and the Republican majority. We know that. We know, when it comes to COVID, that the blame correctly falls on the shoulders of Leader McConnell and all his Republican Senators, who are afraid to do anything, who are divided. Anytime Mr. Mnuchin gets on the phone with them, they say: Don't do anything. We are too divided. Everyone knows that. We must provide real relief. That is what Democrats want to do. But in the Republican proposal today, there is no funding--zero funding--for testing or tracing, the best way to stop this COVID menace. And in the Republican bill tomorrow, the funding for testing and the plan for testing is so completely inadequate that it is laughable, especially given the recent spike in cases. In the Republican proposal today, there is nothing for American families, schools, daycare, or food assistance. They are left behind--all of them. Renters, homeowners, folks struggling to keep a roof over their heads--they are left behind. Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own and need unemployment insurance--they are left behind in these Republican proposals. State and local governments that are being forced to slash critical public service in the middle of a recession--they, too, are all left behind. Even on the issue of small business, the issue on which this bill is focused, it lacks specific funding for restaurants, for independent theaters and venues, for local newspapers, TV, radio stations, critical-need hospitals, minority-owned businesses, and all of ournonprofits. In each of those areas in which the Republican bill is deficient, so many are left behind. We have bipartisan support for programs that are not even being considered here today. And why is that? Why is McConnell doing stunts? The truth is, because the leader can't pass anything on the floor, he is resorting to a series of political stunts. That is all. Everyone knows it. The Republican leader himself admitted that as many as 20 Republican Senators don't want to vote for ``a dime more''--``a dime more,'' his quote--of relief for the American people--so out of touch, so callous, so cruel. So what we have here is a series of show stunt votes designed to fail because the Republicans want them to fail. It is not going to get the job done for the American people. They can't even put a real bill on the floor. The only bills that they can pass are filled with poison pills that they know no Democrat will support in the House or Senate. That was the only way they could get them to vote even for this meager amount in tomorrow's bill--by telling the big corporations: No liability for you if you egregiously hurt a worker who has COVID; by telling wealthy parents: You can pay for private school education with a complete tax break--free, free, but public schools get left out, middle class people get left out, poor people get left out. Wealthy people who send their kids to private schools--that is it--while they refuse to give money to the public schools that need the money. If Leader McConnell were serious, you know what he would be doing. He would be negotiating. He wouldn't be saying: I can't negotiate; my caucus is divided. He would be leading instead of following the 20 hard-right, cruel, callous thoughts of those who don't want to spend any money because their wealthy paymasters don't want to pay taxes: Let people suffer. I don't want to pay taxes. Let people suffer. I don't want government to do anything--when we all know the only real hope here is for a strong, active, and bold government-led program. The private sector can't fight COVID alone. The private sector can't get us out of this deep recession alone. We know that, but not the hard-right Republicans. They are stuck in their narrow ideological prison. So instead of stunts, Senators will actually have a chance today to vote on a real comprehensive bill to address the current state of the country. For months, Democrats have been pushing for the Heroes Act, a second installment of the kind of comprehensive COVID relief we passed in the first bill that brought so much to people, helped them stay in their homes, brought pandemic unemployment insurance, helped our hospitals, helped our local governments, helped do some testing--testing money, by the way, and tracing money, which the Trump administration hasn't even distributed to the States. This bill passed the House over 3 months ago, and since then, Democrats have modified the bill to move closer to our Republican counterparts. Still, Leader McConnell refuses to even bring it up for a vote in the Senate. So today Democrats will move to have the Senate take a vote on the Heroes Act, a comprehensive bill that does so much, that doesn't leave all the people behind that this proposal does. We will see where every Republican Senator stands on real COVID relief--not a stunt, a fake that leaves people out. Unlike the partisan, emaciated Republican COVID relief bill, the Heroes Act will not leave large portions of the country behind. It will not include poison pills like sweeping corporate immunity provisions that Leader McConnell has insisted on in every version of Republican legislation. It will deliver actual relief to American workers, American families, American States and localities and Tribes. It provides assistance for food, rent, and housing; real funding for testing and tracing; unemployment insurance and aid to small businesses of all kinds, not just a few. This morning, a poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena Research showed that 72 percent of Americans, including a clear majority of Independents and Republicans, support another $2 trillion stimulus package. In other words, 72 percent support the Democratic plan to provide COVID relief. Even President Trump has told our Republican Senate colleagues to ``go big or go home.'' If my Republican colleagues were listening to the American people, they would not be playing these partisan games around small-bore, stunt-driven COVID bills. They would be working with Democrats on something that absolutely meets people's needs. Instead, the Republican leader is wasting the American people's time on a vote he knows will fail, and he doesn't even seem to mind. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6304-2 | null | 1,524 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, COVID-19 has changed just about every aspect of American life--every aspect. The bottom line is very simple: The way Americans work, the way we send our kids to school, and the way we run our businesses have all changed. COVID has derailed the economy. Millions of Americans have missed the rent, missed the mortgage, applied for unemployment, been forced to skip meals. American poverty is beginning to increase more dramatically. More than 8 million have gotten sick. More than 220,000 have died. The response here in Congress to a pandemic that affects our country in a way we haven't seen in decades should be to comprehensively provide relief. Our mission is not to pick out one or two industries and say ``maybe later'' to the rest. We can't privilege a small issue here or there and ask everyone else to wait. Our mission is to deliver big for a country and a people who are suffering direly. Our mission is to meet the needs of the country and leave no one--and leave no one--behind. But Leader McConnell and the Republican majority have failed to grasp the gravity of this situation from the beginning. They put the Senate on pause for more than 5 months, while cases went up and the death toll mounted. When the time came for them to pull together in August, they couldn't even get Republican Senators to agree on one. Eight months into this long and brutal crisis, the Republican leader is filled with stunts and playing the smallest of small ball, when so many are hurting. Today, the Republican majority will try to force a stunt--not even a real vote on a bill--but it leaves almost the entire country out of the picture. They are holding the vote over a backdrop of a dire increase in cases. The majority of States are seeing spikes right now. Half of all States have had their highest single day ever in total cases in the last month. Experts say we have hard months ahead of us. It is possible the worst is yet to come--a second wave. We must act now to provide relief to the whole country, and our Republican leader and the Republican Senate are up to a stunt and not even negotiating or putting a bill on the floor, and the American people know it. They know who is to blame. They blame President Trump and the Republican majority. We know that. We know, when it comes to COVID, that the blame correctly falls on the shoulders of Leader McConnell and all his Republican Senators, who are afraid to do anything, who are divided. Anytime Mr. Mnuchin gets on the phone with them, they say: Don't do anything. We are too divided. Everyone knows that. We must provide real relief. That is what Democrats want to do. But in the Republican proposal today, there is no funding--zero funding--for testing or tracing, the best way to stop this COVID menace. And in the Republican bill tomorrow, the funding for testing and the plan for testing is so completely inadequate that it is laughable, especially given the recent spike in cases. In the Republican proposal today, there is nothing for American families, schools, daycare, or food assistance. They are left behind--all of them. Renters, homeowners, folks struggling to keep a roof over their heads--they are left behind. Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own and need unemployment insurance--they are left behind in these Republican proposals. State and local governments that are being forced to slash critical public service in the middle of a recession--they, too, are all left behind. Even on the issue of small business, the issue on which this bill is focused, it lacks specific funding for restaurants, for independent theaters and venues, for local newspapers, TV, radio stations, critical-need hospitals, minority-owned businesses, and all of ournonprofits. In each of those areas in which the Republican bill is deficient, so many are left behind. We have bipartisan support for programs that are not even being considered here today. And why is that? Why is McConnell doing stunts? The truth is, because the leader can't pass anything on the floor, he is resorting to a series of political stunts. That is all. Everyone knows it. The Republican leader himself admitted that as many as 20 Republican Senators don't want to vote for ``a dime more''--``a dime more,'' his quote--of relief for the American people--so out of touch, so callous, so cruel. So what we have here is a series of show stunt votes designed to fail because the Republicans want them to fail. It is not going to get the job done for the American people. They can't even put a real bill on the floor. The only bills that they can pass are filled with poison pills that they know no Democrat will support in the House or Senate. That was the only way they could get them to vote even for this meager amount in tomorrow's bill--by telling the big corporations: No liability for you if you egregiously hurt a worker who has COVID; by telling wealthy parents: You can pay for private school education with a complete tax break--free, free, but public schools get left out, middle class people get left out, poor people get left out. Wealthy people who send their kids to private schools--that is it--while they refuse to give money to the public schools that need the money. If Leader McConnell were serious, you know what he would be doing. He would be negotiating. He wouldn't be saying: I can't negotiate; my caucus is divided. He would be leading instead of following the 20 hard-right, cruel, callous thoughts of those who don't want to spend any money because their wealthy paymasters don't want to pay taxes: Let people suffer. I don't want to pay taxes. Let people suffer. I don't want government to do anything--when we all know the only real hope here is for a strong, active, and bold government-led program. The private sector can't fight COVID alone. The private sector can't get us out of this deep recession alone. We know that, but not the hard-right Republicans. They are stuck in their narrow ideological prison. So instead of stunts, Senators will actually have a chance today to vote on a real comprehensive bill to address the current state of the country. For months, Democrats have been pushing for the Heroes Act, a second installment of the kind of comprehensive COVID relief we passed in the first bill that brought so much to people, helped them stay in their homes, brought pandemic unemployment insurance, helped our hospitals, helped our local governments, helped do some testing--testing money, by the way, and tracing money, which the Trump administration hasn't even distributed to the States. This bill passed the House over 3 months ago, and since then, Democrats have modified the bill to move closer to our Republican counterparts. Still, Leader McConnell refuses to even bring it up for a vote in the Senate. So today Democrats will move to have the Senate take a vote on the Heroes Act, a comprehensive bill that does so much, that doesn't leave all the people behind that this proposal does. We will see where every Republican Senator stands on real COVID relief--not a stunt, a fake that leaves people out. Unlike the partisan, emaciated Republican COVID relief bill, the Heroes Act will not leave large portions of the country behind. It will not include poison pills like sweeping corporate immunity provisions that Leader McConnell has insisted on in every version of Republican legislation. It will deliver actual relief to American workers, American families, American States and localities and Tribes. It provides assistance for food, rent, and housing; real funding for testing and tracing; unemployment insurance and aid to small businesses of all kinds, not just a few. This morning, a poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena Research showed that 72 percent of Americans, including a clear majority of Independents and Republicans, support another $2 trillion stimulus package. In other words, 72 percent support the Democratic plan to provide COVID relief. Even President Trump has told our Republican Senate colleagues to ``go big or go home.'' If my Republican colleagues were listening to the American people, they would not be playing these partisan games around small-bore, stunt-driven COVID bills. They would be working with Democrats on something that absolutely meets people's needs. Instead, the Republican leader is wasting the American people's time on a vote he knows will fail, and he doesn't even seem to mind. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6304-2 | null | 1,525 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, COVID-19 has changed just about every aspect of American life--every aspect. The bottom line is very simple: The way Americans work, the way we send our kids to school, and the way we run our businesses have all changed. COVID has derailed the economy. Millions of Americans have missed the rent, missed the mortgage, applied for unemployment, been forced to skip meals. American poverty is beginning to increase more dramatically. More than 8 million have gotten sick. More than 220,000 have died. The response here in Congress to a pandemic that affects our country in a way we haven't seen in decades should be to comprehensively provide relief. Our mission is not to pick out one or two industries and say ``maybe later'' to the rest. We can't privilege a small issue here or there and ask everyone else to wait. Our mission is to deliver big for a country and a people who are suffering direly. Our mission is to meet the needs of the country and leave no one--and leave no one--behind. But Leader McConnell and the Republican majority have failed to grasp the gravity of this situation from the beginning. They put the Senate on pause for more than 5 months, while cases went up and the death toll mounted. When the time came for them to pull together in August, they couldn't even get Republican Senators to agree on one. Eight months into this long and brutal crisis, the Republican leader is filled with stunts and playing the smallest of small ball, when so many are hurting. Today, the Republican majority will try to force a stunt--not even a real vote on a bill--but it leaves almost the entire country out of the picture. They are holding the vote over a backdrop of a dire increase in cases. The majority of States are seeing spikes right now. Half of all States have had their highest single day ever in total cases in the last month. Experts say we have hard months ahead of us. It is possible the worst is yet to come--a second wave. We must act now to provide relief to the whole country, and our Republican leader and the Republican Senate are up to a stunt and not even negotiating or putting a bill on the floor, and the American people know it. They know who is to blame. They blame President Trump and the Republican majority. We know that. We know, when it comes to COVID, that the blame correctly falls on the shoulders of Leader McConnell and all his Republican Senators, who are afraid to do anything, who are divided. Anytime Mr. Mnuchin gets on the phone with them, they say: Don't do anything. We are too divided. Everyone knows that. We must provide real relief. That is what Democrats want to do. But in the Republican proposal today, there is no funding--zero funding--for testing or tracing, the best way to stop this COVID menace. And in the Republican bill tomorrow, the funding for testing and the plan for testing is so completely inadequate that it is laughable, especially given the recent spike in cases. In the Republican proposal today, there is nothing for American families, schools, daycare, or food assistance. They are left behind--all of them. Renters, homeowners, folks struggling to keep a roof over their heads--they are left behind. Americans who have lost their job through no fault of their own and need unemployment insurance--they are left behind in these Republican proposals. State and local governments that are being forced to slash critical public service in the middle of a recession--they, too, are all left behind. Even on the issue of small business, the issue on which this bill is focused, it lacks specific funding for restaurants, for independent theaters and venues, for local newspapers, TV, radio stations, critical-need hospitals, minority-owned businesses, and all of ournonprofits. In each of those areas in which the Republican bill is deficient, so many are left behind. We have bipartisan support for programs that are not even being considered here today. And why is that? Why is McConnell doing stunts? The truth is, because the leader can't pass anything on the floor, he is resorting to a series of political stunts. That is all. Everyone knows it. The Republican leader himself admitted that as many as 20 Republican Senators don't want to vote for ``a dime more''--``a dime more,'' his quote--of relief for the American people--so out of touch, so callous, so cruel. So what we have here is a series of show stunt votes designed to fail because the Republicans want them to fail. It is not going to get the job done for the American people. They can't even put a real bill on the floor. The only bills that they can pass are filled with poison pills that they know no Democrat will support in the House or Senate. That was the only way they could get them to vote even for this meager amount in tomorrow's bill--by telling the big corporations: No liability for you if you egregiously hurt a worker who has COVID; by telling wealthy parents: You can pay for private school education with a complete tax break--free, free, but public schools get left out, middle class people get left out, poor people get left out. Wealthy people who send their kids to private schools--that is it--while they refuse to give money to the public schools that need the money. If Leader McConnell were serious, you know what he would be doing. He would be negotiating. He wouldn't be saying: I can't negotiate; my caucus is divided. He would be leading instead of following the 20 hard-right, cruel, callous thoughts of those who don't want to spend any money because their wealthy paymasters don't want to pay taxes: Let people suffer. I don't want to pay taxes. Let people suffer. I don't want government to do anything--when we all know the only real hope here is for a strong, active, and bold government-led program. The private sector can't fight COVID alone. The private sector can't get us out of this deep recession alone. We know that, but not the hard-right Republicans. They are stuck in their narrow ideological prison. So instead of stunts, Senators will actually have a chance today to vote on a real comprehensive bill to address the current state of the country. For months, Democrats have been pushing for the Heroes Act, a second installment of the kind of comprehensive COVID relief we passed in the first bill that brought so much to people, helped them stay in their homes, brought pandemic unemployment insurance, helped our hospitals, helped our local governments, helped do some testing--testing money, by the way, and tracing money, which the Trump administration hasn't even distributed to the States. This bill passed the House over 3 months ago, and since then, Democrats have modified the bill to move closer to our Republican counterparts. Still, Leader McConnell refuses to even bring it up for a vote in the Senate. So today Democrats will move to have the Senate take a vote on the Heroes Act, a comprehensive bill that does so much, that doesn't leave all the people behind that this proposal does. We will see where every Republican Senator stands on real COVID relief--not a stunt, a fake that leaves people out. Unlike the partisan, emaciated Republican COVID relief bill, the Heroes Act will not leave large portions of the country behind. It will not include poison pills like sweeping corporate immunity provisions that Leader McConnell has insisted on in every version of Republican legislation. It will deliver actual relief to American workers, American families, American States and localities and Tribes. It provides assistance for food, rent, and housing; real funding for testing and tracing; unemployment insurance and aid to small businesses of all kinds, not just a few. This morning, a poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena Research showed that 72 percent of Americans, including a clear majority of Independents and Republicans, support another $2 trillion stimulus package. In other words, 72 percent support the Democratic plan to provide COVID relief. Even President Trump has told our Republican Senate colleagues to ``go big or go home.'' If my Republican colleagues were listening to the American people, they would not be playing these partisan games around small-bore, stunt-driven COVID bills. They would be working with Democrats on something that absolutely meets people's needs. Instead, the Republican leader is wasting the American people's time on a vote he knows will fail, and he doesn't even seem to mind. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6304-2 | null | 1,526 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, on SCOTUS, yesterday, on a 4-to-4 split ruling, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case that could have prevented the State of Pennsylvania from counting all the votes in the November election. It was an important decision for democracy but also a reminder of what is truly at stake in a Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Ginsburg. One more vote provided by a hard-right, Trump-nominated Justice could be the difference between voting rights and voting suppression. Over the past several years, closely divided decisions of the Supreme Court have meant the difference between having the ability to marry the person you love or not; the ability to have your right to vote protected or not; the ability to make personal choices about your own healthcare or not. The American people should know exactly what is at stake in the nomination of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court--nothing less than their fundamental rights as Americans. So, frankly, it was an insult to the intelligence of the American people for Judge Barrett to spend the entire Judiciary Committee hearing dodging every single question of substance, including questions as to whether voter intimidation is illegal or whether the President could unilaterally delay the election--to not be able to answer whether the President could unilaterally delay the election? Whoa. Just think about what it means for a sitting judge to refuse to answer a question about voter intimidation--voting, the wellspring of our democracy--because she thinks it is too controversial. Think about what it means for a sitting judge to refuse to answer a question about the peaceful transfer of power--the bedrock of our democracy--because it might upset her patron, President Trump. It is absurd. No one is buying it. Every election season, Republicans promise to nominate judges who will tear down our healthcare and roll back the clock on women's rights. The far right promises to deliver judges who will dismantle the environmental regulations that keep our air and water clean and protect our planet from runaway global warming. President Trump has made the same promises out loud many times. But as soon as someone is nominated to be a Justice, all of a sudden that person becomes a legal vacuum, a cipher, totally devoid of ideas, views, or opinions, even on the questions of basic legal, uncontroversial fact. The truth is, Judge Barrett does have, unfortunately, hard-right views and opinions on these issues. Her views are so far away from the American people that none of them could pass in this Senate--even though it is controlled by Republicans--and certainly not in the House. She has harshly criticized decisions to uphold the Affordable Care Act. She has been closely affiliated with organizations that advocate for the elimination of a woman's right to choose. She has drafted judicial opinions on the issue of gun safety that put her far to the right of even Justice Scalia. That is why, in the hearings last week, the president for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said: ``Judge Barrett's views are far outside the mainstream.'' That is why yesterday the plaintiffs in the decisions that resulted in marriage equality--Obergefell and Hodges--said they oppose Judge Barrett for the Supreme Court because she will endanger those hard-won rights. So the idea that Judge Barrett is some sort of neutral arbiter who will only interpret the law as it is written is just not believable. She will make hugely impactful decisions that will alter the fabric of American society, starting with what will be one of her very first cases--a lawsuit pushed by President Trump and Republicans torip away healthcare from millions of Americans. God save us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6305 | null | 1,527 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Russia Mr. President, I want to move to another urgent issue, and this arose again just the other night. This is a matter of significant foreign policy that Iknow Members on both sides are concerned about: President Trump's continued affinity for Vladimir Putin, most recently evidenced by his silence regarding the recent poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who gave an interview on CBS's ``60 Minutes'' that aired just 2 nights ago, October 18, this past Sunday. Navalny was poisoned and nearly killed by a highly lethal chemical weapon nerve agent, Novichok, in August of this year and is currently recovering in Berlin under close security protection. In the interview on ``60 Minutes,'' Navalny directly alleged that Vladimir Putin was behind the poisoning. I am quoting him now. When asked a question, ``Do you think Vladimir Putin was responsible?'' Navalny said, ``I don't think. I am sure he is responsible.'' While German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Macron have called for answers from Putin and led the European Union in imposing sanctions on Russian officials over the use of chemical weapons in violation of international law, President Trump's silence is, to use an old expression, deafening. In a ``60 Minutes'' interview, Mr. Navalny goes on to describe that nerve agent, Novichok, is impossible to acquire. Only someone in Putin's position would be able to deploy it. As the world knows, Mr. Putin is not afraid to go after opponents, like Navalny, who continue to reveal the corruption and authoritarianism of his regime. Despite the growing consensus that Putin himself may have directed the attack, our President has refused to even query--even ask questions--whether there is malicious intent involved. Vladimir Putin, as we know, is a proven enemy of democracy and will go to any lengths to undermine democracy activists in his own country and other countries. When a President of the United States speaks out, the world listens. In this case--this case of attempted murder--the silence of President Trump is insulting to our values as Americans. He is signaling to autocratic leaders all over the world that it is OK to take direct action against their opposition through violence and intimidation. He is signaling to the world that the United States is not committed--not committed--to protecting and promoting democracy. President Trump's silence on Alexei Navalny's poisoning is not the only instance of absolute deference to Vladimir Putin. Throughout his Presidency, President Trump has continuously made decisions that benefit Putin's agenda. In so doing, President Trump also acts to undermine U.S. influence and even to undermine our national security. The U.S. Senate, as a part of a coequal branch of government, must recognize this threat and act as a body to ensure that our institutions at home and our interests abroad are protected. In these last 4 years, the Senate has not lived up to this solemn responsibility. Here is a list--some may argue a short list--of how the President has enabled and empowered Putin and his efforts to undermine our democracy and our national security: No. 1, vowing to pursue closer ties with Russia in his first foreign policy speech as a Presidential candidate at the Center for the National Interest in April of 2016, then-Candidate Trump said: ``We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia.'' Openly and repeatedly questioning U.S. intelligence community findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. Siding with Putin--with Putin--at the 2018 Helsinki summit against the U.S. intelligence community findings about the 2016 election interference. At that now infamous press conference, President Trump said he doesn't ``see any reason why'' Russia would be responsible and that ``President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.'' That is what the President of the United States of America said, totally undermining our intelligence community in just a few remarks. In my judgment, this was one of the worst moments in the history of the U.S. Presidency--a dangerous statement by the President that undermined and still undermines our national security. Another example is attempting to impeach Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia and Russian interference in the 2016 election. Special Counsel Mueller's report documents 10 episodes in which the President interfered with the investigation, including when he asked White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller in June of 2016. In my opinion, that is a clear case among several of such instances of obstruction of justice. Next, deploying Attorney General Bill Barr around the world chasing conspiracy theories and investigating President Trump's complaints about the origin of the government's investigation into Russia's election interference. Intimidating Ukraine's President to investigate former Vice President Biden and his son and threatening to cut U.S. security assistance to Ukraine if they didn't cooperate. As we all know, this originated in a White House whistleblower complaint that led to the President's impeachment. The President's conduct distracted from actual engagement and support to Ukraine as it continues to grapple with Russian aggression. Next, making continued attacks against and undermining NATO, more recently evidenced by his sudden decision to withdraw nearly 10,000 U.S. troops from Germany. Another example is withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria nearly a year ago, clearing the way for Russia--Russia--to become the sole power broker in Syria through enhanced cooperation with Turkey, as evidenced by Turkey's purchase of the Russian S-400 missile system. The Associated Press reports of Russia deploying troops to Syria the same week that the United States withdrew indicates the benefit to Russia. Next, failing to act on intelligence that the Russian Government offered to pay Taliban and Haqqani Network militants to target American troops in Afghanistan, as reported by the New York Times in June of this year. In fact, President Trump suggested this intelligence was ``a hoax'' in a July 1 tweet. It was not a hoax. We know it happened. Withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty, which gives us critical access to and intelligence into Russian military activities. As I noted earlier, continuing to be silent--totally silent--about the recent poisoning of Russian opposition politician Alexey Navalny. Navalny has openly stated that Putin is behind the attack, as I mentioned, and President Trump stands apart--far apart--from Western leaders in his lack of condemnation of the attack. Next, refusing to approve a clean 5-year extension of the New START treaty and thereby clearing a path for Russia to expand its nuclear arsenal unchecked. Finally and most recently--just this statement alone maybe sums up all of it--the President said at a campaign rally on Monday, September 21: I like Putin. He likes me. This list should concern every Member of the Senate. I know it concerns a lot of the Members here, but we have to do more. President Trump has never said a critical word about Vladimir Putin. Yet President Trump has publicly insulted, denigrated, and smeared the U.S. intelligence community, Members of Congress, and even veterans. His tweets disparaging Americans count in the hundreds--hundreds of tweets regarding Americans, but he has never said a word--not a single word--critical of Vladimir Putin. I will focus on one of the big issues and then conclude. In June of this year, the New York Times reported on intelligence that the Russian Government offered to pay Taliban and Haqqani Network militants to target American troops in Afghanistan. The President's silence and refusal to raise this with Putin in his many one-on-one conversations with him is alarming, and this failure undermines our national security. One incident that may have been a bounty attack was an April 2019 bombing that killed three marines. One of them was a Pennsylvanian. We know that as of the most recent numbers, 294 servicemembers from Pennsylvania were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--the third highest toll of any State Any possibility that Russia is playing a hand in killing American and Pennsylvania soldiers must be thoroughly investigated. President Trump's silence indicates not only that he doesn't care about Russian threats to national security, but apparently he doesn't care that American lives might be at risk because of Russian aggression. To date, the majority in the Senate has not taken appropriate action to hold this President accountable for his failure to act or investigate these serious allegations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6323 | null | 1,528 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I mourn the loss of a tremendous champion for human rights and the State of Israel and one of my personal heroes and mentors, Ambassador Richard Schifter. Ambassador Schifter lived a truly remarkable life. After escaping Nazi-occupied Austria in 1938, he bravely returned to Europe just a few short years later as one of the U.S. Army's ``Ritchie Boys'', German-speaking officers trained in counterintelligence at Camp Ritchie in Maryland. While serving in Europe, he learned that all of his family had been killed in the Holocaust. At just over 20 years old, Ambassador Schifter had experienced more adversity than most of us see in a lifetime. Nevertheless, he spent the next seven decades demonstrating incredible faith and courage as he strived to make the world a better place. Ambassador Schifter was successful in this mission. After he graduated from Yale Law School, he went on to become an attorney, advocating for the rights of Native American Tribes facing discrimination at the hands of the U.S. Government. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, U.S. Representative to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission, and as Deputy U.S. Representative to the UN Security Council. Under President Clinton, he served as Special Assistant to the President on the staff of the National Security Council and as Special Advisor to the Secretary of State. As a diplomat and public servant, he fought against oppressive regimes around the world. He pressured the Soviet Union to release political prisoners, end the criminalization of dissent, and allow the emigration of Soviet Jews. After leaving the U.S. Government, Ambassador Schifter went on the lead the American Jewish International Relations Institute, where he fiercely defended the State of Israel and worked to ensure that other people would never suffer his family's fate under the Nazis. Until his last day, Ambassador Schifter fought to promote fairness and democracy and to protect the security and freedom of others. I would be remiss if I failed to commemorate Ambassador Schifter's enormous impact on our home State of Maryland. Ambassador Schifter served for 20 years on the Maryland State Board of Education, leading both the Governor's Commission on Funding the Education of Handicapped Children and the Governor's Commission on Values Education. He was also the chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee. In all these roles, he worked to expand equality and opportunity for everyone in our State. Even as his professional responsibilities spanned the globe, Ambassador Schifter remained committed to building a brighter future for his neighbors. Ambassador Schifter's passing is a staggering loss, but his legacy lives on and will serve as the true North Star for all of us who share his devotion to human rights, democracy, and decency. His parent's decision in 1938 to send their 15-year-old son to a new country, alone, saved not just his life, but also countless others on whose behalf Ambassador Schifter worked so indefatigably throughout his illustrious career. I extend my deepest condolences Ambassador Schifter's children and grandchildren and all those who were fortunate enough to call Ambassador Schifter a friend. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6325-3 | null | 1,529 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I mourn the loss of a tremendous champion for human rights and the State of Israel and one of my personal heroes and mentors, Ambassador Richard Schifter. Ambassador Schifter lived a truly remarkable life. After escaping Nazi-occupied Austria in 1938, he bravely returned to Europe just a few short years later as one of the U.S. Army's ``Ritchie Boys'', German-speaking officers trained in counterintelligence at Camp Ritchie in Maryland. While serving in Europe, he learned that all of his family had been killed in the Holocaust. At just over 20 years old, Ambassador Schifter had experienced more adversity than most of us see in a lifetime. Nevertheless, he spent the next seven decades demonstrating incredible faith and courage as he strived to make the world a better place. Ambassador Schifter was successful in this mission. After he graduated from Yale Law School, he went on to become an attorney, advocating for the rights of Native American Tribes facing discrimination at the hands of the U.S. Government. Under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, U.S. Representative to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission, and as Deputy U.S. Representative to the UN Security Council. Under President Clinton, he served as Special Assistant to the President on the staff of the National Security Council and as Special Advisor to the Secretary of State. As a diplomat and public servant, he fought against oppressive regimes around the world. He pressured the Soviet Union to release political prisoners, end the criminalization of dissent, and allow the emigration of Soviet Jews. After leaving the U.S. Government, Ambassador Schifter went on the lead the American Jewish International Relations Institute, where he fiercely defended the State of Israel and worked to ensure that other people would never suffer his family's fate under the Nazis. Until his last day, Ambassador Schifter fought to promote fairness and democracy and to protect the security and freedom of others. I would be remiss if I failed to commemorate Ambassador Schifter's enormous impact on our home State of Maryland. Ambassador Schifter served for 20 years on the Maryland State Board of Education, leading both the Governor's Commission on Funding the Education of Handicapped Children and the Governor's Commission on Values Education. He was also the chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee. In all these roles, he worked to expand equality and opportunity for everyone in our State. Even as his professional responsibilities spanned the globe, Ambassador Schifter remained committed to building a brighter future for his neighbors. Ambassador Schifter's passing is a staggering loss, but his legacy lives on and will serve as the true North Star for all of us who share his devotion to human rights, democracy, and decency. His parent's decision in 1938 to send their 15-year-old son to a new country, alone, saved not just his life, but also countless others on whose behalf Ambassador Schifter worked so indefatigably throughout his illustrious career. I extend my deepest condolences Ambassador Schifter's children and grandchildren and all those who were fortunate enough to call Ambassador Schifter a friend. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6325-3 | null | 1,530 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Election Security Mr. President, despite these recent failures abroad, one of the biggest challenges we all face right now is the pressing threat to our democracy. As Americans across the Nation are currently casting their ballots by way of voting early in person or voting by mail for the next President of the United States, we are seeing increasing reports of Russian efforts to interfere in our election. The CIA has concluded that Vladimir Putin is likely directly involved in Russian efforts to promote disinformation, sow discord, and carry out cyber attacks on the United States. I cite for this the New York Times September 22, 2020, article. Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a former Republican Senator here from Indiana on two different occasions--he served his State twice in that capacity--wrote in an op-ed recently: If we fail to take every conceivable effort to ensure the integrity of our election, the winners will not be Donald Trump or Joe Biden, Republicans or Democrats. The only winners will be Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Ali Khamenei. Leaders, of course, of China and Iran. Despite clear evidence, President Trump continues to deny Russian misconduct, and he continues to contradict our intelligence community. We should ask, what is the obligation of the Senate? I spent 4 years--as many people have--urging the President from afar, at least, to actively demonstrate to us that his love of country outweighs his affinity for Putin. At this point in time, I don't expect his behavior to change. But it is incumbent--incumbent--upon the U.S. Senate, as part of a coequal branch of government, to call out the President and to hold him accountable when he engages in these kinds of actions or inactions, as the case may be. The Senate has taken some actions. This body has passed a number of substantive sanctions: the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act--so-called CAATSA--against Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and interference in the 2016 election. That was the right thing to do and an appropriate thing to do. The Senate Intelligence Committee and other committees of jurisdiction have done important work documenting Russia's interference in the 2016 election, but that is not enough. The work cannot stop there. Russia has continued, will continue, and will continue to succeed in undermining our national security if we allow them. The silence of Senate Republicans on this issue of the President's total deference to Putin has become, in my judgment, complicity. Those who fail to stand up and loudly express their alarm are tacitly showing their approval. Their failure to take action is also its own danger to our democracy. Instead of prioritizing the unprecedented public health and economic crisis that is in front of us, some Republican-led committees--not all but some--are prioritizing a partisan political investigation, the basis for which stems directly from a known Russian disinformation campaign. In the face of intelligence reports showing that the Russians are once again seeking to influence this election, Senate Republicans have refused to pass a single piece of substantive election security legislation. There is still time. I will give one example or one suggestion to the majority. The SAFE Act, which requires paper ballots in Federal elections and would authorize $775 million in grants to help States secure their voting systems, passed the House 450 days ago, but Majority Leader McConnell would rather let this bill gather dust on his desk than take meaningful action to protect our democracy, to protect our election. The unwillingness to protect our elections from foreign interference is a dereliction of duty by the majority. Finally, in conclusion, I call on my colleagues to answer the call of duty to protect our election, protect our democracy, and protect our national security against malign and persistent Russian influence and interference orchestrated by the man President Trump has never criticized. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-19-pt2-PgS6325 | null | 1,531 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Dr. Haywood A. Robinson, III, The People's Community Baptist Church, Silver Spring, Maryland, offered the following prayer: Eternal God, the source, sustainer, and supplier of everything pertaining to life, it is to You that we come this morning. Before You, Who, from nothing, created soil, seas, and skies, and Who established galaxies, groves, and governments, we come. We approach You with gratitude, mindful that as a Nation we have enjoyed Your providential presence, protection, power, and prosperity. And, for all of our individual and corporate wrongs, we repent and appeal to You for Your mercy. On behalf of the people of this land, Your appointed men and women assemble at this hour. We are keenly aware of the significance of the season in which this session convenes. In this season marked by darkness, we need Your light; marked by hatred, we need Your love; by disease, we need Your healing; by death, we need Your comfort; by despair, we need Your hope; by injustice, we need Your justice; and by lawlessness, Lord, we need Your grace. Grant these leaders the discernment to recognize Your will and the discipline to follow it. As a melting pot of cultures, languages, ideologies, and faith traditions, help us to coexist in unity while celebrating diversity. Guard and govern us such that our plurality leads, not to our peril, but to our promise and progress. Shape the atmosphere for us today to be one that is ripe for robust yet respectful discussion, debate, and decision making, resulting in legislation that promotes and protects the worth and welfare of each person in our great Nation, and by extension all people throughout the world, both now and for generations to come. In Jesus' name. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-20-pt1-PgH5697-3 | null | 1,532 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, on the Supreme Court, the Republican leader has announced the Senate will vote next Monday on Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be a Supreme Court Justice, capping what will be the most rushed, most partisan, and least legitimate process in the entire history of Supreme Court nominations. Leader McConnell continues to defile the Senate more than any other Senator has done in a very long time. Let us hope that Leader McConnell hasn't ruined the Senate for good with this nasty 180-degree turn, holding up Merrick Garland, and rushing this judge through while people are in line at the polling places. The idea ``let's wait for the next election'' was total hypocrisy--total hypocrisy. The U.S. Senate has never--never--considered a Supreme Court Justice this close to a national Presidential election. I doubt it ever will again. I don't think we will ever have the combination of Donald Trump and Leader McConnell, who so don't care about what they said in the past--McConnell anyway--who so don't care about trying to pick a Justice who will look at the law as opposed to ideological views. I hope it doesn't happen again. I pray it doesn't happen again. Just 4 years ago, we all know the Republican leader, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and nearly every single Republican Member argued that President Obama's nominee didn't deserve a hearing or a vote on the floor of the Senate because there was a national election 8 months away. Mere hours after the passing of Justice Scalia, Leader McConnell said the American people deserve a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice, not if one party or another party controlled the Presidency or the Senate. Absolute: The American people deserve a voice. That was 8 months from an election. Leader McConnell confirmed yesterday that the vote to confirm President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court will take place 8 days before an election. Senate Republicans could wait 8 months to give the American people a voice in selecting a Supreme Court Justice; now they can't wait 8 days? I am sure that if they had to, the Republican majority would confirm a Supreme Court Justice 8 minutes before election day. Is it no wonder thatDemocrats are so angry? Is it no wonder that the American people are tearing their hair out, when they have said they want to wait until the next election, when that is only fair, that is only democratic? The hypocrisy is towering and enormous. And as I said, Leader McConnell could destroy this Chamber for a very long time. Why is this happening? Well, this is part of a decade-long effort to shift the courts to the far right so that the far right, which has so many Republicans in their grasp, can accomplish through the judiciary what they could never accomplish through the Congress. Senate Republicans failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We know. That happened right here. So President Trump and Republican attorneys general are suing to eliminate the law in court. Senate Republicans don't dare put repeal of Roe v. Wade on the floor of the Senate. They know it would fail. But they try to appoint Justices who are dedicated to repealing that vital right of a woman to choose and to control her own body. This is just an amazing moment. One of Coney Barrett's very first cases would be to hear arguments against the Affordable Care Act, the very act that this Chamber rejected repeal of. Republicans, as I said, could never repeal a woman's right to choose in Congress. They don't even dare bring it to the floor. The far right has never had a majority on the Court to limit Roe or Griswold, but if Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, it very well might. Women of America, watch out. Watch out. I will remind my colleagues and the American people, when President Trump was asked about Roe v. Wade during his final debate against Hillary Clinton, he said: ``If we put another two or three Justices on the court, the repeal of Roe v. Wade will happen automatically.'' Is that what this Republican majority stands for? If they do, announce it to the American people. Don't hide behind this idea that Justices are calling balls and strikes; that they will obey precedent. Don't hide behind that because we know what is happening here. The American people should make no mistake. Their fundamental rights are on the line: the right to affordable healthcare, to make their own medical decisions, to join a union, vote without impediment, the right to marry whom they love--that is what this is all about. Now Leader McConnell has strained credulity to argue that ramming a Supreme Court Justice through the Senate while American voters wait in line to cast their ballots is completely normal. Nothing to see here, he says. Who believes him? I don't think a single Republican on that side believes him. They know what is going on. This is not the Senate, as he says, performing its historic function. It is a fiction. There is no precedent in history of the Senate for what the Republicans are doing. Abraham Lincoln, our great hero, great Republican, rejected nominating somebody to the Supreme Court so close to an election. So Republicans, at the very least, ought to go on record and admit this is an extraordinary breach of precedent, of comity, of fairness, of decency, of honor, of truth, of consistency. So in a short time, I will make a point of order that the Senate should not consider a nomination to the Supreme Court this close to a Presidential election. Every Senator will vote on whether a nomination this close to an election shall be in order. It will confirm to the American people what we all know to be true--that the Republican majority has absolutely no intention of honoring the supposed principle it so vehemently argued in 2016. That they won't follow history; that they won't follow precedent; that they won't follow norms and traditions of the Senate; that they won't even follow their own standards--that is the indelible mark on this Senate majority; that here in Leader McConnell's Senate, it is the rule of ``because we can,'' ``might makes right,'' ``because we can,'' as Senator Whitehouse put it, all to confirm a far-right Justice on the Court who would rip away healthcare from tens of millions of Americans in the middle of a pandemic. We will see how my Republican colleagues vote. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-21-pt1-PgS6339 | null | 1,533 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 2681. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4675, to amend the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 21, strike line 23 and all that follows through the item relating to section 198 after line 2 on page 22 and insert the following: ``SEC. 199. STATE OPT-IN. ``(a) In General.--Sections 196, 197, and 198 shall apply only in States that have in effect a law to apply such sections to group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in the State. A State may repeal such a law and terminate the application of such sections in such State. ``(b) Scope of State Opt-in.--A State law described in subsection (a) may apply with respect to all of the requirements under sections 196, 197, and 198, any single requirement under any of such sections, or any combination of requirements under such sections, as determined by the State. ``(c) Enforcement Under ERISA and IRC.--Subsection (c) of section 715 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and subsection (c) of section 9815 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply with respect to group health plans and health insurance coverage in a State only to the extent that sections 196, 197, and 198 apply in such State, in accordance with this section.''. (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents under section 1(b) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 195 the following:``Sec. 196. Prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions.``Sec. 197. Guaranteed Availability of Coverage.``Sec. 198. Prohibiting Discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status.``Sec. 199. State opt-in.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-21-pt1-PgS6380-3 | null | 1,534 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | SA 2681. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4675, to amend the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 21, strike line 23 and all that follows through the item relating to section 198 after line 2 on page 22 and insert the following: ``SEC. 199. STATE OPT-IN. ``(a) In General.--Sections 196, 197, and 198 shall apply only in States that have in effect a law to apply such sections to group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in the State. A State may repeal such a law and terminate the application of such sections in such State. ``(b) Scope of State Opt-in.--A State law described in subsection (a) may apply with respect to all of the requirements under sections 196, 197, and 198, any single requirement under any of such sections, or any combination of requirements under such sections, as determined by the State. ``(c) Enforcement Under ERISA and IRC.--Subsection (c) of section 715 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and subsection (c) of section 9815 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply with respect to group health plans and health insurance coverage in a State only to the extent that sections 196, 197, and 198 apply in such State, in accordance with this section.''. (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents under section 1(b) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 195 the following:``Sec. 196. Prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions.``Sec. 197. Guaranteed Availability of Coverage.``Sec. 198. Prohibiting Discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status.``Sec. 199. State opt-in.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-21-pt1-PgS6380-3 | null | 1,535 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Coronavirus Madam President, the last point I want to make--and I know we have a vote in a few minutes--is this: If you ask the American people ``What is the business of the Senate for the next 5 days?'' I don't think anyone, if they follow it closely, would ever guess the business that we are about. We live in a country now where 222,000 people have died from this COVID-19 pandemic--222,000. Eight million have been affected. A country that represents 4.5 percent of the world's population, the United States counts for 20 percent of all the COVID-19 deaths in the world. Sadly, it is getting worse before it gets better. In the State of Illinois, the Governor announced yesterday that because of the increased incidence of infection from COVID-19 in the four major counties surrounding the city of Chicago, we have to close down restaurants and other establishments. It is heartbreaking. I know what it means to these business owners. But it is also heartbreaking to read the numbers day in and day out of what this COVID-19 virus is doing in America--not just to the poor hapless souls who are infected and some dying but to the economy of this country. Wouldn't you think that would be the focus of business on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Wouldn't you think that the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell from Kentucky, who controls the business of the floor, would make that job one for all of us and stick together on a bipartisan basis to come up with an agreement before we did anything else? Well if you guessed that, you are wrong, because for the next 5 days, we will be consumed with filling one Supreme Court vacancy. He is determined to fill that vacancy at any cost, including ignoring the major issue of our time, the major issue of the moment--the pandemic, which affects this country so gravely. We have lost 222,000 souls, sadly, in America, and it is estimated that it may reach half a million by January 1. What a heartbreak. And we are here spending 5 straight days not dealing with COVID-19 relief, not providing the testing that is needed, not providing unemployment benefits to those who lost jobs, not providing help to small businesses--no. We are focused on one nomination for one vacancy in the Supreme Court. As important as that may be in the ordinary scheme of things, we are not in the ordinary scheme of things. We are dealing with an extraordinary pandemic, which is causing grave damage to this country, to its families, and to our economy. The President may not take it seriously. Obviously the Senate Republicans don't take it seriously. If they did, they would be engaged. I cannot explain or even imagine how he explains why Senator McConnell refuses to sit down for the negotiations for COVID-19 relief. That is right. They have had negotiations that have involved Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, and the President's Chief of Staff, and Senator McConnell refuses to attend those negotiations where they are trying to come up with a bipartisan measure to help us through this crisis. All he does is offer throwaway votes on the floor, take-it-or-leave-it votes on the floor that don't have any bipartisan route to them. They come to us because he wants to have a symbolic rollcall--a symbolic rollcall--for his Members to take home and say: Well, I tried. No, you didn't try. If for 5 straight days we do nothing about COVID-19 and focus exclusively on this nominee, how in the world will any Senator explain that was the American priority of the moment? It is not. The American priority of the moment is not this vacancy on the Supreme Court; it is the fact that there are vacancies in homes across America from 222,000 deaths in this country, and they continue apace every single day. We ought to be coming together on a bipartisan basis. The person who should be leading us in the Senate is the Senate Republican leader. He does not, and as a consequence, we waste our moments here when they should be spent helping America with its highest priority. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6388 | null | 1,536 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Coronavirus Madam President, the last point I want to make--and I know we have a vote in a few minutes--is this: If you ask the American people ``What is the business of the Senate for the next 5 days?'' I don't think anyone, if they follow it closely, would ever guess the business that we are about. We live in a country now where 222,000 people have died from this COVID-19 pandemic--222,000. Eight million have been affected. A country that represents 4.5 percent of the world's population, the United States counts for 20 percent of all the COVID-19 deaths in the world. Sadly, it is getting worse before it gets better. In the State of Illinois, the Governor announced yesterday that because of the increased incidence of infection from COVID-19 in the four major counties surrounding the city of Chicago, we have to close down restaurants and other establishments. It is heartbreaking. I know what it means to these business owners. But it is also heartbreaking to read the numbers day in and day out of what this COVID-19 virus is doing in America--not just to the poor hapless souls who are infected and some dying but to the economy of this country. Wouldn't you think that would be the focus of business on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Wouldn't you think that the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell from Kentucky, who controls the business of the floor, would make that job one for all of us and stick together on a bipartisan basis to come up with an agreement before we did anything else? Well if you guessed that, you are wrong, because for the next 5 days, we will be consumed with filling one Supreme Court vacancy. He is determined to fill that vacancy at any cost, including ignoring the major issue of our time, the major issue of the moment--the pandemic, which affects this country so gravely. We have lost 222,000 souls, sadly, in America, and it is estimated that it may reach half a million by January 1. What a heartbreak. And we are here spending 5 straight days not dealing with COVID-19 relief, not providing the testing that is needed, not providing unemployment benefits to those who lost jobs, not providing help to small businesses--no. We are focused on one nomination for one vacancy in the Supreme Court. As important as that may be in the ordinary scheme of things, we are not in the ordinary scheme of things. We are dealing with an extraordinary pandemic, which is causing grave damage to this country, to its families, and to our economy. The President may not take it seriously. Obviously the Senate Republicans don't take it seriously. If they did, they would be engaged. I cannot explain or even imagine how he explains why Senator McConnell refuses to sit down for the negotiations for COVID-19 relief. That is right. They have had negotiations that have involved Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, and the President's Chief of Staff, and Senator McConnell refuses to attend those negotiations where they are trying to come up with a bipartisan measure to help us through this crisis. All he does is offer throwaway votes on the floor, take-it-or-leave-it votes on the floor that don't have any bipartisan route to them. They come to us because he wants to have a symbolic rollcall--a symbolic rollcall--for his Members to take home and say: Well, I tried. No, you didn't try. If for 5 straight days we do nothing about COVID-19 and focus exclusively on this nominee, how in the world will any Senator explain that was the American priority of the moment? It is not. The American priority of the moment is not this vacancy on the Supreme Court; it is the fact that there are vacancies in homes across America from 222,000 deaths in this country, and they continue apace every single day. We ought to be coming together on a bipartisan basis. The person who should be leading us in the Senate is the Senate Republican leader. He does not, and as a consequence, we waste our moments here when they should be spent helping America with its highest priority. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6388 | null | 1,537 |
formal | banker | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I offer my recognition of the great service of Dean A. Collett to countless Utah students. His service has spanned over six decades, starting in the fall of 1956 when he first walked through the doors of Highland High School. Today, at the age of 92, even through the difficulties of COVID-19, Dean sits at his desk making personal phone calls to each of his students, ensuring nothing less than their academic success. He is a true servant of the people of Utah and one who deserves the highest of honors. Dean Ashton Collett was born on September 30, 1928, to Richard G. Collett and Amy Ashton Collett in Salt Lake City, UT. Richard Collett was a successful banker, but due to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, the Collett family, with all five of their children, would move frequently around Salt Lake City looking for work, a hardship that would follow Richard and Amy for much of their lives. From those moments as a child, Dean would dedicate his entire life helping to support his family, working to keep food on the table and later taking care of his mother until her passing. Dean spent his youth working as a paper boy, doing yard work for hire, and later working as a grocery store cashier at Table Supply in the avenues of Salt Lake City. As the family kept relocating in search of work, Dean attended Emerson Elementary School, Ensign Elementary School, and Washington Elementary School. He progressed throughhis educational pursuits, graduating from East High School in 1945 and later from the University of Utah in 1956. Before completing his time at the University of Utah, Dean served a 3-year mission in Sweden for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon his return, he was drafted into the Korean war and stationed in Germany due to his knowledge of both Swedish and German. Once he graduated from the University of Utah, Dean was given his first teaching job at a then brandnew school called Highland High School in Salt Lake City. Little did he know at the time that serving this school would end up being his whole life's mission. During Dean's time at Highland High School, he has taught the subjects of math, English, yearbook, student government, German, and Russian; acted as a cheerleading adviser; and is now a school counselor. His time at Highland has spanned more than 63 graduating classes and more than 30,000 students. He is an avid football fan and has yet to miss a single Highland High football game in the school's entire history. You will often see him selling tickets for sporting events, dances, plays, and any other community events at the school. He has been a father figure to thousands and helped students in need of clothing, food, and financial assistance, including for those serving a church mission. Dean never married or had children of his own, but instead dedicated his life to the children of Highland High School. My own staffer, Matt Holton, was a student of Dean's in the early 2000s and got to experience Dean's extraordinary dedication to his students firsthand. While Matt was a freshman, his father was deployed with the U.S. Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dean saw a student in need of additional care and so took Matt under his wing, becoming a crucial mentor and father figure in his life. To this day, they remain close friends. Dean was also a teacher of a dear friend of mine, former Governor of the State of Utah, U.S. Ambassador to China, and U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman. Dean often teaches the students of Highland High School that failure is a critical ingredient to success, using the example that Jon Huntsman, who ran and lost for student body president, later achieved the highest offices of public service. Dean is an undeniable institution not only at Highland High School, but throughout the entire State of Utah. He is a Utahn from the Greatest Generation, embodying the best of the American spirit; and it is my privilege to honor him today. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6399-3 | null | 1,538 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I offer my recognition of the great service of Dean A. Collett to countless Utah students. His service has spanned over six decades, starting in the fall of 1956 when he first walked through the doors of Highland High School. Today, at the age of 92, even through the difficulties of COVID-19, Dean sits at his desk making personal phone calls to each of his students, ensuring nothing less than their academic success. He is a true servant of the people of Utah and one who deserves the highest of honors. Dean Ashton Collett was born on September 30, 1928, to Richard G. Collett and Amy Ashton Collett in Salt Lake City, UT. Richard Collett was a successful banker, but due to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, the Collett family, with all five of their children, would move frequently around Salt Lake City looking for work, a hardship that would follow Richard and Amy for much of their lives. From those moments as a child, Dean would dedicate his entire life helping to support his family, working to keep food on the table and later taking care of his mother until her passing. Dean spent his youth working as a paper boy, doing yard work for hire, and later working as a grocery store cashier at Table Supply in the avenues of Salt Lake City. As the family kept relocating in search of work, Dean attended Emerson Elementary School, Ensign Elementary School, and Washington Elementary School. He progressed throughhis educational pursuits, graduating from East High School in 1945 and later from the University of Utah in 1956. Before completing his time at the University of Utah, Dean served a 3-year mission in Sweden for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon his return, he was drafted into the Korean war and stationed in Germany due to his knowledge of both Swedish and German. Once he graduated from the University of Utah, Dean was given his first teaching job at a then brandnew school called Highland High School in Salt Lake City. Little did he know at the time that serving this school would end up being his whole life's mission. During Dean's time at Highland High School, he has taught the subjects of math, English, yearbook, student government, German, and Russian; acted as a cheerleading adviser; and is now a school counselor. His time at Highland has spanned more than 63 graduating classes and more than 30,000 students. He is an avid football fan and has yet to miss a single Highland High football game in the school's entire history. You will often see him selling tickets for sporting events, dances, plays, and any other community events at the school. He has been a father figure to thousands and helped students in need of clothing, food, and financial assistance, including for those serving a church mission. Dean never married or had children of his own, but instead dedicated his life to the children of Highland High School. My own staffer, Matt Holton, was a student of Dean's in the early 2000s and got to experience Dean's extraordinary dedication to his students firsthand. While Matt was a freshman, his father was deployed with the U.S. Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dean saw a student in need of additional care and so took Matt under his wing, becoming a crucial mentor and father figure in his life. To this day, they remain close friends. Dean was also a teacher of a dear friend of mine, former Governor of the State of Utah, U.S. Ambassador to China, and U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman. Dean often teaches the students of Highland High School that failure is a critical ingredient to success, using the example that Jon Huntsman, who ran and lost for student body president, later achieved the highest offices of public service. Dean is an undeniable institution not only at Highland High School, but throughout the entire State of Utah. He is a Utahn from the Greatest Generation, embodying the best of the American spirit; and it is my privilege to honor him today. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6399-3 | null | 1,539 |
formal | never married | null | homophobic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I offer my recognition of the great service of Dean A. Collett to countless Utah students. His service has spanned over six decades, starting in the fall of 1956 when he first walked through the doors of Highland High School. Today, at the age of 92, even through the difficulties of COVID-19, Dean sits at his desk making personal phone calls to each of his students, ensuring nothing less than their academic success. He is a true servant of the people of Utah and one who deserves the highest of honors. Dean Ashton Collett was born on September 30, 1928, to Richard G. Collett and Amy Ashton Collett in Salt Lake City, UT. Richard Collett was a successful banker, but due to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, the Collett family, with all five of their children, would move frequently around Salt Lake City looking for work, a hardship that would follow Richard and Amy for much of their lives. From those moments as a child, Dean would dedicate his entire life helping to support his family, working to keep food on the table and later taking care of his mother until her passing. Dean spent his youth working as a paper boy, doing yard work for hire, and later working as a grocery store cashier at Table Supply in the avenues of Salt Lake City. As the family kept relocating in search of work, Dean attended Emerson Elementary School, Ensign Elementary School, and Washington Elementary School. He progressed throughhis educational pursuits, graduating from East High School in 1945 and later from the University of Utah in 1956. Before completing his time at the University of Utah, Dean served a 3-year mission in Sweden for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon his return, he was drafted into the Korean war and stationed in Germany due to his knowledge of both Swedish and German. Once he graduated from the University of Utah, Dean was given his first teaching job at a then brandnew school called Highland High School in Salt Lake City. Little did he know at the time that serving this school would end up being his whole life's mission. During Dean's time at Highland High School, he has taught the subjects of math, English, yearbook, student government, German, and Russian; acted as a cheerleading adviser; and is now a school counselor. His time at Highland has spanned more than 63 graduating classes and more than 30,000 students. He is an avid football fan and has yet to miss a single Highland High football game in the school's entire history. You will often see him selling tickets for sporting events, dances, plays, and any other community events at the school. He has been a father figure to thousands and helped students in need of clothing, food, and financial assistance, including for those serving a church mission. Dean never married or had children of his own, but instead dedicated his life to the children of Highland High School. My own staffer, Matt Holton, was a student of Dean's in the early 2000s and got to experience Dean's extraordinary dedication to his students firsthand. While Matt was a freshman, his father was deployed with the U.S. Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dean saw a student in need of additional care and so took Matt under his wing, becoming a crucial mentor and father figure in his life. To this day, they remain close friends. Dean was also a teacher of a dear friend of mine, former Governor of the State of Utah, U.S. Ambassador to China, and U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman. Dean often teaches the students of Highland High School that failure is a critical ingredient to success, using the example that Jon Huntsman, who ran and lost for student body president, later achieved the highest offices of public service. Dean is an undeniable institution not only at Highland High School, but throughout the entire State of Utah. He is a Utahn from the Greatest Generation, embodying the best of the American spirit; and it is my privilege to honor him today. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6399-3 | null | 1,540 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-5689. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Interim Final Regulations - Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures'' (34 CFR Part 9) received in the Office of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-5690. A communication from the Executive Director, Office of General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Additional Withdrawal Options'' (5 CFR Part 1631) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 8, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5691. A communication from the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's 2019 Annual Report to Congress; to the Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5692. A communication from the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's annual submission regarding agency compliance with the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and revised Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5693. A communication from the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's fiscal year 2020 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act submission of its commercial and inherently governmental activities; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5694. A communication from the Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2021-01, Introduction'' (FAC 2021-01) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 8, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5695. A communication from the CEO and Director of the United States Agency for Global Media, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's fiscal year 2020 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act submission of its commercial and inherently governmental activities; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-5696. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Facilitating the Use of the WIPO's ePCT System to Prepare International Applications for Filing with the United States Receiving Office'' (RIN0651-AD43) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 5, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5697. A communication from the Supervisor of the Regulations and Dissemination Team, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States'' (RIN1205-AC00) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 8, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5698. A communication from the Chief of the Regulatory Coordination Division, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Strengthening the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification Program'' (RIN1615-AC13) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5699. A communication from the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, two (2) reports relative to vacancies in the Department of Justice, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 19, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5700. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures Miscellaneous Amendments; Amdt. No 3913'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31321)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5701. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures Miscellaneous Amendments; Amdt. No 3914'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31322)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5702. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures Miscellaneous Amendments; Amdt. No 3911'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31319)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5703. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.) Helicopters; Amendment 39-21194'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0598)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5704. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation (Type Certificate Previously Held by Allison Engine Company) Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0679)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5705. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-21178'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0214)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5706. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21172'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0337)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5707. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21173'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0588)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5708. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21175'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0009)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5709. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; PZL Swidnik S.A. Helicopters; Amendment 39-0675'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0675)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5710. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; PZL Swidnik S.A. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21169'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0753)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5711. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; DE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines (Type Certificate Previously Held by WALTER Engines a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.); Amendment 39-21167'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0967)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5712. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines; Amendment 39-21166'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-1021)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5713. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters; Amendment 39- 21176'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2017-1123)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5714. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; PZL Swidnik S.A. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21187'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0705)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5715. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21157'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0097)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5716. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Agusta S.p.A) Helicopters; Amendment 39-21179'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0204)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5717. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Airplanes; Amendment 39-21165'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0334)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5718. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21159'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0577)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5719. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 29-21162'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0578)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5720. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Austro Engines GmbH Engines; Amendment 39-21161'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-1113)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5721. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Formerly Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21161'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0617)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5722. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Daher Aircraft Design, LLC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Quest Aircraft Design LLC) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21146'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-0180)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5723. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-21164'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-1099)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5724. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries Airplanes; Amendment 39-21160'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0644)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5725. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21163'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0579)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5726. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.A Helicopters; Amendment 39-21181'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0215)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5727. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes; Amendment 39-21182'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0566)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-5728. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Aspen Avionics, Inc.; Amendment 39-21192'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA- 2020-0723)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 13, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6401 | null | 1,541 |
formal | religious freedom | null | homophobic | Mr. HAWLEY (for himself, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Braun, Mr. Young, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. McSally, and Mr. Lankford) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 752 Whereas the Chinese Communist Party has long persecuted Tibetans for their religious beliefs, including by illegitimately claiming authority to designate the Dalai Lama's successor, destroying religious institutions, and arbitrarily detaining, disappearing, and torturing Tibetans in order to compel adherence to ``normal religious activities'', as sanctioned by the Party; Whereas the Chinese Communist Party has launched a policy of Sinicization of Tibetans and escalated its attacks on Tibetans by removing Tibetan farmers and herders from their land, compelling them to cede control of their land and herds to state authorities, transferring them to state facilities where they are subjected to forced labor training programs, political indoctrination, and other abuses, and sending them to state-assigned jobs in Tibet and other parts of China, often far from their families and communities; Whereas the Chinese Communist Party views forced labor and other coercive measures as acceptable practices for strengthening the Chinese economy, while simultaneously suppressing or eliminating religious and ethnic groups that it views as inherently threatening to its rule and other political ambitions; Whereas the Chinese Communist Party's actions in Tibet, like its actions in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and other parts of China, reflect the Party's belief that might makes right and its determination to use every measure at its disposal, no matter how heinous, to consolidate power and advance its interests; and Whereas the Chinese Communist Party believes that might makes right not just domestically, but also in international relations, as evidenced by its actions in the Taiwan Strait, the South and East China Seas, along the Sino-Indian border, and in cyberspace, as well as its use of economic threats to silence or otherwise compel nations, businesses, and individuals to accede to its demands throughout the Indo- Pacific region and beyond: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns the Chinese Communist Party's campaign against religious freedom in Tibet, including its plainly illegitimate efforts to designate the next Dalai Lama, which is a matter that should be determined solely within the Tibetan Buddhist faith community; (2) calls for an investigation into the Chinese Communist Party's use of forced labor, in addition to other coercive measures, to force Tibetans to practice their faith in a manner compliant with the Party's interpretation of ``normal religious activities''; (3) calls on United States companies to scrutinize their supply chains and divest of suppliers and other partners that use Tibetan or other forced labor programs or are unable to certify that they do not use Tibetan or other forced labor; (4) calls on the United States Government to proactively support, as per the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 (subtitle B of title VI of division A of Public law 107-228; 22 U.S.C. 6901 note), the Dalai Lama's call for negotiations to resolve the issue of Tibet, including by preserving religious freedom and Tibetan labor rights; and (5) encourages all nations to condemn the Chinese Communist Party's attempts to impose its will on others, both at home and abroad, and stand together against the Party's hegemonic agenda. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6404-2 | null | 1,542 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Ms. Murkowski) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 753 Whereas, according to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey-- (1) up to 12,000,000 individuals in the United States report experiencing intimate partner violence annually, including physical violence, rape, or stalking; and (2) approximately 1 in 5 women in the United States and up to 1 in 7 men in the United States have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetimes; Whereas, on average, 3 women in the United States are killed each day by a current or former intimate partner, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics; Whereas domestic violence can affect anyone, but women who are 18 to 34 years of age typically experience the highest rates of domestic violence; Whereas survivors of domestic violence are strong, courageous, and resilient; Whereas most female victims of intimate partner violence have been victimized by the same offender previously; Whereas domestic violence is cited as a significant factor in homelessness among families; Whereas millions of children are exposed to domestic violence each year; Whereas research shows that boys who are exposed to domestic violence in their households are more likely to become perpetrators of intimate partner violence; Whereas victims of domestic violence experience immediate and long-term negative outcomes, including detrimental effects on mental and physical health; Whereas research consistently shows that being abused by an intimate partner increases an individual's likelihood of substance use as well as associated harmful consequences; Whereas victims of domestic violence may lose several days of paid work each year and may lose their jobs due to reasons stemming from domestic violence; Whereas crisis hotlines serving domestic violence victims operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, and offer important crisis intervention services, support services, information, and referrals for victims; Whereas staff and volunteers of domestic violence shelters and programs in the United States, in cooperation with 56 State and territorial coalitions against domestic violence, provide essential services to-- (1) thousands of adults and children each day; and (2) 1,000,000 adults and children each year; Whereas more than 160 States, counties, and cities have experienced an increase in reports of domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic increases the isolation of survivors of domestic violence and that isolation is being used as a tool by abusers to exert power and coercive control; Whereas domestic violence programs and hotlines have seen a substantial increase in contacts since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and are expecting a surge in requests for services when social distancing is no longer necessary; Whereas local YWCAs shared that between March 31, 2020 and late summer 2020, as a result of the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic-- (1) 69 percent of respondent YWCAs that operate domestic violence hotlines reported an increase in demand for services; and (2) 64 percent of nearly 100 local YWCAs who provide domestic violence services (either emergency shelter or transitional housing) reported an increase in demand for domestic violence shelter; Whereas while violence as a lived experience of American Indian and Alaska Native women exists in less pressing times, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the challenges and barriers to accessing safety by exacerbating already existing issues including-- (1) lack of safe housing for victims; (2) lack of space in shelters for victims to maintain safe social distancing; (3) lack of personal protective equipment for staff of tribal shelters and victim services programs; (4) limited transportation for victims; and (5) lack of access to adequate health care; Whereas respondents to a survey of domestic violence programs reported that survivors of domestic violence are facing financial challenges related to COVID-19 and three quarters of those respondents reported that survivors are having trouble accessing food, and more than half of those respondents have reported that survivors cannot pay their bills; Whereas medical professionals have reported that survivors of domestic violence are presenting with more severe injuries during the pandemic; Whereas domestic violence programs are having to change the way they provide services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas advocates for survivors of domestic violence and survivors face the same challenges with childcare and facilitating online learning that others do; Whereas, according to a 2019 survey conducted by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 77,226 domestic violence victims were served by domestic violence shelters and programs around the United States in a single day; Whereas non-citizen victims of domestic violence report heightened concerns with accessing law enforcement and services due to uncertainty arising from changing immigration policies and heightened immigration enforcement; Whereas law enforcement officers in the United States put their lives at risk each day by responding to incidents of domestic violence, which can be among the most volatile and deadly calls; Whereas Congress first demonstrated a significant commitment to supporting victims of domestic violence with the enactment of the landmark Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.); Whereas Congress has remained committed to protecting survivors of all forms of domestic violence and sexual abuse by making Federal funding available to support the activities that are authorized under-- (1) the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.); and (2) the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291 et seq.); Whereas there is a need to continue to support programs and activities aimed at domestic violence intervention and domestic violence prevention in the United States; Whereas domestic violence programs provide trauma-informed services to protect the safety, privacy, and confidentiality of survivors of domestic violence; and Whereas individuals and organizations that are dedicated to preventing and ending domestic violence should be recognized: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the Senate-- (A) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Domestic Violence Awareness Month''; (B) commends domestic violence victim advocates, domestic violence victim service providers, crisis hotline staff, and first responders serving victims of domestic violence, for their compassionate support of survivors of domestic violence; and (C) recognizes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on advocates for survivors of domestic violence and survivors; and (2) it is the sense of the Senate that Congress should-- (A) continue to raise awareness of-- (i) domestic violence in the United States; and (ii) the corresponding devastating effects of domestic violence on survivors, families, and communities; and (B) pledge continued support for programs designed to-- (i) assist survivors of domestic violence; (ii) hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable; and (iii) bring an end to domestic violence. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-22-pt1-PgS6405 | null | 1,543 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Rabbi Arnold E. Resnicoff, U.S. Navy, Retired, Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer: Almighty God, we pray, reflect in different ways but together mourn our dead and tell their stories to keep their memories alive. Thirty-seven years ago today, I was in Beirut when a terrorist truck-bomb attack took the lives of 241 U.S. military personnel. Fifty-eight French troops died a heartbeat later: a second truck, another deadly blast. They came in peace. They risked their lives to buy some time for change. Peace did not prevail, but their risk, their sacrifice must be honored and remembered. Their story must be told. Today, as we recall and honor Beirut dead and Beirut vets in a special way, we mourn all those we have lost to war, to hatred, and disease as well. Lord, may we heed Your call: together, to choose life--to work for, fight for life: a better life for those who one day will remember us. And may we say amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-23-pt1-PgH5703-3 | null | 1,544 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Vaccine Safety Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on another subject. I want to talk about science and vaccines. The Governors of New York and California have announced they are creating their own State review panels to review COVID-19 vaccine data as it becomes available. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said: ``Frankly, I'm not going to trust the Federal Government's opinion.'' In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has Stated the vaccine won't be distributed in California until it is reviewed by a State panel of experts. The Governor of California said on October 20: ``Of course, we won't take anyone's word for it.'' Every day, Americans take the word of Food and Drug Administration's career scientists on the safety and effectiveness of the prescriptions they approve when we purchase 3.8 billion prescriptions a year. Let me say that again. We take the word of the FDA career scientists every day when we purchase 3.8 billion prescriptions each year. I asked Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, on September 23, about the safety of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. He was testifying on COVID-19 in front of the Health Committee, which I chair and of which the Senator from Indiana is a valued member. I asked him: Dr. Hahn, who makes decisions about safety and efficacy at the FDA? Do you do it? Do career scientists do it? Or does the White House do it? Dr. Hahn replied: Career scientists at the FDA do it. That's very clear. I'm briefed on all major medical product decisions. Overruling a center's decision is a very rare event. I have expressed on multiple occasions my intention, and have done so during this COVID-19 pandemic, to make sure that those decisions are made by career scientists in the centers. I followed up by asking Dr. Hahn's confidence in taking a COVID-19 vaccine himself. I said: You referred to this, but once FDA approves a vaccine, and as we've said today, we're going to have tens of millions of doses ready, none can be distributed until FDA approves it. Will you be willing to take that vaccine for you and for your family? He replied: Absolutely. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have complete and absolute faith in the expertise of the scientists who are terrific at FDA. If they were to make a determination that a vaccine would be safe and effective, I would do that. And I would encourage my family to take the vaccine. Those are the words of the man whose job it is to finally approve any COVID-19 vaccine. But then, at the beginning of this month, as FDA was preparing to issue additional guidance on the data needed from vaccine developers to demonstrate safety and efficacy for an emergency use authorization, there were serious questions about whether the White House was politicizing the FDA's approval of vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA had submitted its guidance. That guidance was written by career scientists. Those scientists had decades of experience, and what they wrote were the standards that were going to be used for the approval of vaccines against COVID-19. Then news reports of White House interference came out which suggested the White House was going to change the FDA guidance or that the White House was not going to allow the FDA to release its own guidance. Many were concerned about that, including me. The New York Times, on October 5, had a big headline: ``White House Blocks New Coronavirus Vaccine Guidelines.'' And it went on to say, ``The F.D.A. proposed stricter guidelines for emergency approval of a coronavirus vaccine, but the White House chief of staff objected to provisions that would push approval past Election Day.'' That was the New York Times. And FOX News said: ``Trump administration to block FDA guidelines that could delay coronavirus vaccine.'' That is FOX News. ``The FDA proposed stricter guidance last month that could prolong the timeline for a vaccine,'' FOX News said. There were many stories to this effect. I could barely leave my office without some reporter asking me if I was concerned about this, about the politicization of the vaccine review process. So I telephoned White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and I asked him about it. I said to him: ``Please do not interfere with the standards set by the career scientists at FDA for the approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.'' The White House did exactly what I urged the White House to do. The White House respected the decisions of the career scientists. They did not change one word of the standards set by the career scientists for the approval of COVID-19 vaccines. So I would suggest that the Governors of New York and California do the same. They should show the same respect to the FDA career scientists that the White House did. Undermining the FDA's gold standard of safety and efficacy by setting up State review panels could delay approval, discourage Americans from taking the vaccine, and cost lives. There is a reason why we Americans rely on the Federal Government's Food and Drug Administration for the safety and efficacy of vaccines. In 1902, Congress decided, when it passed the Biologics Control Act, that the Federal Government should regulate vaccines after tragic incidents of children dying from contaminated diphtheria antitoxin and smallpox vaccines. This law charged the Federal laboratory that would later become the National Institutes of Health in 1930 with ensuring the ``safety, purity, and potency'' of biologic products such as vaccines. Then, in 1972, the regulation of vaccines moved to the Food and Drug Administration, to what is now called the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. FDA, therefore, has had almost 50 years of experience to refine the process for reviewing safety and efficacy for vaccines, including what data to look at and how to design clinical trials to prove that the vaccines work and that the vaccines are safe. Earlier this week, the FDA convened independent scientific and medical experts to discuss this. They talked about the development, authorization, and approval of vaccines for COVID-19. This is not a new process for assessing vaccines. The FDA routinely convenes these type of independent panels to help inform its review. Dr. Peter Marks, head of the Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research, at FDA, wrote this about the vaccine advisory committee's role on FDA's website: The committee will hear presentations from experts in COVID-19 disease and vaccine development, as well as from career FDA scientists. Topics will include studies needed to support authorization or approval, post-marketing safety studies needed following an approval, and what would be necessary for ongoing safety monitoring following issuance of an emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Marks continued: There will also be a part of the meeting during which members of the public will have an opportunity to speak and provide input, and this will be followed by a thorough discussion of the issues by the committee members. The members of this committee are external scientific and public health experts from around the country, specializing in fields such as immunology, virology, infectious diseases, pediatrics, vaccine development, and vaccine safety. This meeting, and any other FDA advisory committee meeting, can be viewed by the public. At the Senate Health Committee hearing on September 23, where FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn testified, I reviewed the three steps that have to happen before FDA will approve a vaccine: No. 1, independent experts overseeing clinical trials determine whether there is enough data available for the FDA to review. No. 2, after demonstrating safety and efficacy based on clinical trials, the vaccine manufacturer submits an application to the FDA. And No. 3, FDA experts conduct their review and make the final determination whether or not it is safe and that it works. In other words, no one knows when the vaccine will be ready to distribute. No one knows that, even Dr. Hahn. And why does he not know it? Because there is this elaborate, independent, public process established by career scientists, with not a word changed by the White House, that will review the data and then make a decision. Because of the work of Congress and the administration, tens of millions of doses are being manufactured. So when that approval comes--whether it is November, December, or January--there will be tens of millions of doses of vaccine ready to distribute to the American people. But that approval won't come until the career scientists' rules are followed. The FDA is considered the gold standard in the world, in part because it is one of the few regulatory agencies in the world that looks at detailed clinical trial data as part of its review, rather than summaries of clinical trial data. The FDA Division making the decision to approve or authorize a vaccine for COVID-19 is led by experts with decades of experience, including Dr. Peter Marks, whom I mentioned, the head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. He has been at the center since 2012. Dr. Celia Witten has been at FDA since 1996. The Vaccine Division of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is led by Dr. Marion Gruber, who has over 20 years of experience in regulatory review and approval of vaccines and biologics. The Deputy Director of the Vaccine Division, Dr. Philip Krause, has 10 years of experience at FDA working on vaccines. FDA will also have the advice of independent advisory committees. California and New York--no State will be able to assemble a scientific panel of experts with the same high level of knowledge and experience reviewing safety and efficacy information as exists at the Food and Drug Administration. Democratic Governors in those two States should not both be telling President Trump that he ought to follow the advice of scientists like Dr. Fauci, which he should do, but at the same time undermine the review and the work of similar career scientists at the Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines save lives. We have heard testimony in our Health Committee demonstrating that. Undermining public confidence in vaccine risks not only our ability to combat COVID-19 but acceptance of other vaccines as well. If California and New York can override the FDA on vaccines, what would prevent Republican Governors from banning RU-486, the abortion drug, in their States? If that were to happen, I am sure my Democratic colleagues would cry politics and suggest that if FDA has reviewed and approved a drug and said it is safe and effective, then, States should not be able to say that it is unsafe. FDA is the right agency to review and approve vaccines and drugs and medical devices. I would urge the Governors of California and New York not to set up their State review panels but instead focus their time and resources on planning to distribute the vaccine and improving testing and contract tracing, using the resources that Congress has given to States, rather than second-guessing the efforts of scientists at the Food and Drug Administration I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-24-pt1-PgS6429 | null | 1,545 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Vaccine Safety Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on another subject. I want to talk about science and vaccines. The Governors of New York and California have announced they are creating their own State review panels to review COVID-19 vaccine data as it becomes available. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said: ``Frankly, I'm not going to trust the Federal Government's opinion.'' In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has Stated the vaccine won't be distributed in California until it is reviewed by a State panel of experts. The Governor of California said on October 20: ``Of course, we won't take anyone's word for it.'' Every day, Americans take the word of Food and Drug Administration's career scientists on the safety and effectiveness of the prescriptions they approve when we purchase 3.8 billion prescriptions a year. Let me say that again. We take the word of the FDA career scientists every day when we purchase 3.8 billion prescriptions each year. I asked Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, on September 23, about the safety of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. He was testifying on COVID-19 in front of the Health Committee, which I chair and of which the Senator from Indiana is a valued member. I asked him: Dr. Hahn, who makes decisions about safety and efficacy at the FDA? Do you do it? Do career scientists do it? Or does the White House do it? Dr. Hahn replied: Career scientists at the FDA do it. That's very clear. I'm briefed on all major medical product decisions. Overruling a center's decision is a very rare event. I have expressed on multiple occasions my intention, and have done so during this COVID-19 pandemic, to make sure that those decisions are made by career scientists in the centers. I followed up by asking Dr. Hahn's confidence in taking a COVID-19 vaccine himself. I said: You referred to this, but once FDA approves a vaccine, and as we've said today, we're going to have tens of millions of doses ready, none can be distributed until FDA approves it. Will you be willing to take that vaccine for you and for your family? He replied: Absolutely. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have complete and absolute faith in the expertise of the scientists who are terrific at FDA. If they were to make a determination that a vaccine would be safe and effective, I would do that. And I would encourage my family to take the vaccine. Those are the words of the man whose job it is to finally approve any COVID-19 vaccine. But then, at the beginning of this month, as FDA was preparing to issue additional guidance on the data needed from vaccine developers to demonstrate safety and efficacy for an emergency use authorization, there were serious questions about whether the White House was politicizing the FDA's approval of vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA had submitted its guidance. That guidance was written by career scientists. Those scientists had decades of experience, and what they wrote were the standards that were going to be used for the approval of vaccines against COVID-19. Then news reports of White House interference came out which suggested the White House was going to change the FDA guidance or that the White House was not going to allow the FDA to release its own guidance. Many were concerned about that, including me. The New York Times, on October 5, had a big headline: ``White House Blocks New Coronavirus Vaccine Guidelines.'' And it went on to say, ``The F.D.A. proposed stricter guidelines for emergency approval of a coronavirus vaccine, but the White House chief of staff objected to provisions that would push approval past Election Day.'' That was the New York Times. And FOX News said: ``Trump administration to block FDA guidelines that could delay coronavirus vaccine.'' That is FOX News. ``The FDA proposed stricter guidance last month that could prolong the timeline for a vaccine,'' FOX News said. There were many stories to this effect. I could barely leave my office without some reporter asking me if I was concerned about this, about the politicization of the vaccine review process. So I telephoned White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and I asked him about it. I said to him: ``Please do not interfere with the standards set by the career scientists at FDA for the approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.'' The White House did exactly what I urged the White House to do. The White House respected the decisions of the career scientists. They did not change one word of the standards set by the career scientists for the approval of COVID-19 vaccines. So I would suggest that the Governors of New York and California do the same. They should show the same respect to the FDA career scientists that the White House did. Undermining the FDA's gold standard of safety and efficacy by setting up State review panels could delay approval, discourage Americans from taking the vaccine, and cost lives. There is a reason why we Americans rely on the Federal Government's Food and Drug Administration for the safety and efficacy of vaccines. In 1902, Congress decided, when it passed the Biologics Control Act, that the Federal Government should regulate vaccines after tragic incidents of children dying from contaminated diphtheria antitoxin and smallpox vaccines. This law charged the Federal laboratory that would later become the National Institutes of Health in 1930 with ensuring the ``safety, purity, and potency'' of biologic products such as vaccines. Then, in 1972, the regulation of vaccines moved to the Food and Drug Administration, to what is now called the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. FDA, therefore, has had almost 50 years of experience to refine the process for reviewing safety and efficacy for vaccines, including what data to look at and how to design clinical trials to prove that the vaccines work and that the vaccines are safe. Earlier this week, the FDA convened independent scientific and medical experts to discuss this. They talked about the development, authorization, and approval of vaccines for COVID-19. This is not a new process for assessing vaccines. The FDA routinely convenes these type of independent panels to help inform its review. Dr. Peter Marks, head of the Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research, at FDA, wrote this about the vaccine advisory committee's role on FDA's website: The committee will hear presentations from experts in COVID-19 disease and vaccine development, as well as from career FDA scientists. Topics will include studies needed to support authorization or approval, post-marketing safety studies needed following an approval, and what would be necessary for ongoing safety monitoring following issuance of an emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Marks continued: There will also be a part of the meeting during which members of the public will have an opportunity to speak and provide input, and this will be followed by a thorough discussion of the issues by the committee members. The members of this committee are external scientific and public health experts from around the country, specializing in fields such as immunology, virology, infectious diseases, pediatrics, vaccine development, and vaccine safety. This meeting, and any other FDA advisory committee meeting, can be viewed by the public. At the Senate Health Committee hearing on September 23, where FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn testified, I reviewed the three steps that have to happen before FDA will approve a vaccine: No. 1, independent experts overseeing clinical trials determine whether there is enough data available for the FDA to review. No. 2, after demonstrating safety and efficacy based on clinical trials, the vaccine manufacturer submits an application to the FDA. And No. 3, FDA experts conduct their review and make the final determination whether or not it is safe and that it works. In other words, no one knows when the vaccine will be ready to distribute. No one knows that, even Dr. Hahn. And why does he not know it? Because there is this elaborate, independent, public process established by career scientists, with not a word changed by the White House, that will review the data and then make a decision. Because of the work of Congress and the administration, tens of millions of doses are being manufactured. So when that approval comes--whether it is November, December, or January--there will be tens of millions of doses of vaccine ready to distribute to the American people. But that approval won't come until the career scientists' rules are followed. The FDA is considered the gold standard in the world, in part because it is one of the few regulatory agencies in the world that looks at detailed clinical trial data as part of its review, rather than summaries of clinical trial data. The FDA Division making the decision to approve or authorize a vaccine for COVID-19 is led by experts with decades of experience, including Dr. Peter Marks, whom I mentioned, the head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. He has been at the center since 2012. Dr. Celia Witten has been at FDA since 1996. The Vaccine Division of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is led by Dr. Marion Gruber, who has over 20 years of experience in regulatory review and approval of vaccines and biologics. The Deputy Director of the Vaccine Division, Dr. Philip Krause, has 10 years of experience at FDA working on vaccines. FDA will also have the advice of independent advisory committees. California and New York--no State will be able to assemble a scientific panel of experts with the same high level of knowledge and experience reviewing safety and efficacy information as exists at the Food and Drug Administration. Democratic Governors in those two States should not both be telling President Trump that he ought to follow the advice of scientists like Dr. Fauci, which he should do, but at the same time undermine the review and the work of similar career scientists at the Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines save lives. We have heard testimony in our Health Committee demonstrating that. Undermining public confidence in vaccine risks not only our ability to combat COVID-19 but acceptance of other vaccines as well. If California and New York can override the FDA on vaccines, what would prevent Republican Governors from banning RU-486, the abortion drug, in their States? If that were to happen, I am sure my Democratic colleagues would cry politics and suggest that if FDA has reviewed and approved a drug and said it is safe and effective, then, States should not be able to say that it is unsafe. FDA is the right agency to review and approve vaccines and drugs and medical devices. I would urge the Governors of California and New York not to set up their State review panels but instead focus their time and resources on planning to distribute the vaccine and improving testing and contract tracing, using the resources that Congress has given to States, rather than second-guessing the efforts of scientists at the Food and Drug Administration I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-24-pt1-PgS6429 | null | 1,546 |
formal | vaccine safety | null | anti-vax | Vaccine Safety Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on another subject. I want to talk about science and vaccines. The Governors of New York and California have announced they are creating their own State review panels to review COVID-19 vaccine data as it becomes available. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said: ``Frankly, I'm not going to trust the Federal Government's opinion.'' In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has Stated the vaccine won't be distributed in California until it is reviewed by a State panel of experts. The Governor of California said on October 20: ``Of course, we won't take anyone's word for it.'' Every day, Americans take the word of Food and Drug Administration's career scientists on the safety and effectiveness of the prescriptions they approve when we purchase 3.8 billion prescriptions a year. Let me say that again. We take the word of the FDA career scientists every day when we purchase 3.8 billion prescriptions each year. I asked Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA Commissioner, on September 23, about the safety of a potential COVID-19 vaccine. He was testifying on COVID-19 in front of the Health Committee, which I chair and of which the Senator from Indiana is a valued member. I asked him: Dr. Hahn, who makes decisions about safety and efficacy at the FDA? Do you do it? Do career scientists do it? Or does the White House do it? Dr. Hahn replied: Career scientists at the FDA do it. That's very clear. I'm briefed on all major medical product decisions. Overruling a center's decision is a very rare event. I have expressed on multiple occasions my intention, and have done so during this COVID-19 pandemic, to make sure that those decisions are made by career scientists in the centers. I followed up by asking Dr. Hahn's confidence in taking a COVID-19 vaccine himself. I said: You referred to this, but once FDA approves a vaccine, and as we've said today, we're going to have tens of millions of doses ready, none can be distributed until FDA approves it. Will you be willing to take that vaccine for you and for your family? He replied: Absolutely. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have complete and absolute faith in the expertise of the scientists who are terrific at FDA. If they were to make a determination that a vaccine would be safe and effective, I would do that. And I would encourage my family to take the vaccine. Those are the words of the man whose job it is to finally approve any COVID-19 vaccine. But then, at the beginning of this month, as FDA was preparing to issue additional guidance on the data needed from vaccine developers to demonstrate safety and efficacy for an emergency use authorization, there were serious questions about whether the White House was politicizing the FDA's approval of vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA had submitted its guidance. That guidance was written by career scientists. Those scientists had decades of experience, and what they wrote were the standards that were going to be used for the approval of vaccines against COVID-19. Then news reports of White House interference came out which suggested the White House was going to change the FDA guidance or that the White House was not going to allow the FDA to release its own guidance. Many were concerned about that, including me. The New York Times, on October 5, had a big headline: ``White House Blocks New Coronavirus Vaccine Guidelines.'' And it went on to say, ``The F.D.A. proposed stricter guidelines for emergency approval of a coronavirus vaccine, but the White House chief of staff objected to provisions that would push approval past Election Day.'' That was the New York Times. And FOX News said: ``Trump administration to block FDA guidelines that could delay coronavirus vaccine.'' That is FOX News. ``The FDA proposed stricter guidance last month that could prolong the timeline for a vaccine,'' FOX News said. There were many stories to this effect. I could barely leave my office without some reporter asking me if I was concerned about this, about the politicization of the vaccine review process. So I telephoned White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and I asked him about it. I said to him: ``Please do not interfere with the standards set by the career scientists at FDA for the approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.'' The White House did exactly what I urged the White House to do. The White House respected the decisions of the career scientists. They did not change one word of the standards set by the career scientists for the approval of COVID-19 vaccines. So I would suggest that the Governors of New York and California do the same. They should show the same respect to the FDA career scientists that the White House did. Undermining the FDA's gold standard of safety and efficacy by setting up State review panels could delay approval, discourage Americans from taking the vaccine, and cost lives. There is a reason why we Americans rely on the Federal Government's Food and Drug Administration for the safety and efficacy of vaccines. In 1902, Congress decided, when it passed the Biologics Control Act, that the Federal Government should regulate vaccines after tragic incidents of children dying from contaminated diphtheria antitoxin and smallpox vaccines. This law charged the Federal laboratory that would later become the National Institutes of Health in 1930 with ensuring the ``safety, purity, and potency'' of biologic products such as vaccines. Then, in 1972, the regulation of vaccines moved to the Food and Drug Administration, to what is now called the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. FDA, therefore, has had almost 50 years of experience to refine the process for reviewing safety and efficacy for vaccines, including what data to look at and how to design clinical trials to prove that the vaccines work and that the vaccines are safe. Earlier this week, the FDA convened independent scientific and medical experts to discuss this. They talked about the development, authorization, and approval of vaccines for COVID-19. This is not a new process for assessing vaccines. The FDA routinely convenes these type of independent panels to help inform its review. Dr. Peter Marks, head of the Center for BiologicsEvaluation and Research, at FDA, wrote this about the vaccine advisory committee's role on FDA's website: The committee will hear presentations from experts in COVID-19 disease and vaccine development, as well as from career FDA scientists. Topics will include studies needed to support authorization or approval, post-marketing safety studies needed following an approval, and what would be necessary for ongoing safety monitoring following issuance of an emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Marks continued: There will also be a part of the meeting during which members of the public will have an opportunity to speak and provide input, and this will be followed by a thorough discussion of the issues by the committee members. The members of this committee are external scientific and public health experts from around the country, specializing in fields such as immunology, virology, infectious diseases, pediatrics, vaccine development, and vaccine safety. This meeting, and any other FDA advisory committee meeting, can be viewed by the public. At the Senate Health Committee hearing on September 23, where FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn testified, I reviewed the three steps that have to happen before FDA will approve a vaccine: No. 1, independent experts overseeing clinical trials determine whether there is enough data available for the FDA to review. No. 2, after demonstrating safety and efficacy based on clinical trials, the vaccine manufacturer submits an application to the FDA. And No. 3, FDA experts conduct their review and make the final determination whether or not it is safe and that it works. In other words, no one knows when the vaccine will be ready to distribute. No one knows that, even Dr. Hahn. And why does he not know it? Because there is this elaborate, independent, public process established by career scientists, with not a word changed by the White House, that will review the data and then make a decision. Because of the work of Congress and the administration, tens of millions of doses are being manufactured. So when that approval comes--whether it is November, December, or January--there will be tens of millions of doses of vaccine ready to distribute to the American people. But that approval won't come until the career scientists' rules are followed. The FDA is considered the gold standard in the world, in part because it is one of the few regulatory agencies in the world that looks at detailed clinical trial data as part of its review, rather than summaries of clinical trial data. The FDA Division making the decision to approve or authorize a vaccine for COVID-19 is led by experts with decades of experience, including Dr. Peter Marks, whom I mentioned, the head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. He has been at the center since 2012. Dr. Celia Witten has been at FDA since 1996. The Vaccine Division of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is led by Dr. Marion Gruber, who has over 20 years of experience in regulatory review and approval of vaccines and biologics. The Deputy Director of the Vaccine Division, Dr. Philip Krause, has 10 years of experience at FDA working on vaccines. FDA will also have the advice of independent advisory committees. California and New York--no State will be able to assemble a scientific panel of experts with the same high level of knowledge and experience reviewing safety and efficacy information as exists at the Food and Drug Administration. Democratic Governors in those two States should not both be telling President Trump that he ought to follow the advice of scientists like Dr. Fauci, which he should do, but at the same time undermine the review and the work of similar career scientists at the Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines save lives. We have heard testimony in our Health Committee demonstrating that. Undermining public confidence in vaccine risks not only our ability to combat COVID-19 but acceptance of other vaccines as well. If California and New York can override the FDA on vaccines, what would prevent Republican Governors from banning RU-486, the abortion drug, in their States? If that were to happen, I am sure my Democratic colleagues would cry politics and suggest that if FDA has reviewed and approved a drug and said it is safe and effective, then, States should not be able to say that it is unsafe. FDA is the right agency to review and approve vaccines and drugs and medical devices. I would urge the Governors of California and New York not to set up their State review panels but instead focus their time and resources on planning to distribute the vaccine and improving testing and contract tracing, using the resources that Congress has given to States, rather than second-guessing the efforts of scientists at the Food and Drug Administration I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-24-pt1-PgS6429 | null | 1,547 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 759 Whereas dark money organizations, funded by anonymous donors, have played an outsized role in the selection of judges and justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (referred to in this preamble as the ``Supreme Court'') under President Trump and spent millions of anonymous dollars on advertising campaigns supporting those selections; Whereas the people of the United States have no idea who is funding these campaigns and what business the funders might have before the courts; Whereas, under President Trump, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (referred to in this preamble as the ``Federalist Society'') has played a central role in the selection of President Trump's judicial nominees, including his 3 nominees to the Supreme Court, for example-- (1) in 2016, then-candidate Trump said that all of his judicial selections would ``be hand-picked by the Federalist Society''; (2) in 2017, then-White House Counsel Don McGahn boasted that the judicial selection process had been ``in-sourced'' to the Federalist Society; (3) Leonard Leo, the Co-Chairman of the Federalist Society, twice took a leave of absence from the Federalist Society to work in the White House and advise President Trump on his Supreme Court nominations; (4) approximately 86 percent of President Trump's Supreme Court and appellate court nominees have been members of the Federalist Society; and (5) Judge Amy Coney Barret has spoken at 26 Federalist Society events since 2014 and, at the time of his confirmation in 2018, Justice Brett Kavanaugh had spoken at over 50 Federalist Society events; Whereas the Washington Post reported that Leonard Leo has helped raise $250,000,000 from mostly anonymous donors to promote conservative legal causes and judges; Whereas groups engaged in these activities do not disclose their funders, meaning the people of the United States have no idea who is behind this sophisticated operation to influence the selection of judges and justices; Whereas dark money groups like the Judicial Crisis Network (referred to in the preamble as ``JCN'') have helped shape the composition of the Supreme Court by spending tens of millions of anonymous dollars on advertising campaigns opposing or supporting Supreme Court nominees, specifically-- (1) JCN spent $7,000,000 to block President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2016; (2) JCN pledged to spend $10,000,000 to support President Trump's nomination of then-Judge Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2017; (3) JCN also spent $10,000,000 to support President Trump's nomination of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2018; and (4) JCN has pledged to spend $10,000,000 to support President Trump's nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court; Whereas JCN is a dark money organization and does not disclose its funders to the people of the United States; Whereas JCN has received multiple massive contributions from the anonymous donors, specifically-- (1) a $15,881,000 anonymous contribution in tax year 2018; (2) a $17,100,000 anonymous contribution in tax year 2017; (3) a $21,464,995 anonymous contribution in tax year 2016; and (4) a $17,920,000 anonymous contribution in tax year 2015; and Whereas the American people have no idea who made these massive contributions and what business the contributors might have before the courts: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) fair and impartial courts are a bedrock of American democracy and crucial to maintaining the faith of the people of the United States in the justice system; (2) this massive dark money operation to influence the selection and confirmation of judges and justices creates significant conflict of interest concerns for the judiciary and undermines the integrity of the courts and the justice system; and (3) the people of the United States deserve to know who is behind this massive dark money campaign to capture the courts. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-24-pt1-PgS6448 | null | 1,548 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, filling the seat vacated by the late Justice Ginsburg with a very worthy successor. When President Trump nominated Judge Barrett last month, some Americans questioned whether the Senate should confirm any nominee to the Supreme Court. But today, just weeks later, a clear majority of Americans support confirmation, including a majority of Independents. What happened? It is very simple. Americans met Judge Barrett; they loved what they saw; and they decided she is the right woman for this job. Consider her achievements. She graduated No. 1 in her class from Notre Dame Law School, where she also edited the law review and later clerked for two giants of our judiciary--Judge Silberman of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the late, great Justice Scalia. Years later, Judge Barrett returned to her alma mater as a professor, where she won the esteem of her students and colleagues as a gifted teacher and an ``absolutely brilliant legal scholar,'' to quote the dean of Notre Dame Law. Then, in 2017, the Senate confirmed Professor Barrett to be Judge Barrett on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In the 3 years since then, she has established herself as one of America's finest judges--unwaveringly committed to the rule of law and equality before the law. A Scalia protege, beloved professor, respected jurist--those titles alone warrant Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court, but they are not her only achievements or even the most important ones. In addition to those things, she has a big and beautiful family, with a devoted husband and seven kids, including two adopted from Haiti. They are a family knitted together by love and faith. Any parent knows how difficult it must be for Judge Barrett to juggle the demands of her work with her duties as a parent and a wife. But like millions of working moms, she manages to do both with incredible skill, grace, and poise. I suspect I must confess that if Judge Barrett had been nominated by a President without an ``R'' behind his name, the media would laud her as a pioneer, an inspiration to young women all across the country. Today's newspapers would contain front page stories of gushing profiles, studded with words like ``iconic'' and ``pathbreaking.'' The media would practically carry her from the Judiciary Committee to this floor so we could vote to confirm her, and then they would carry her across the street to her Supreme Court chambers. But, curiously, I have noticed that is not what the media is doing--not in the least. Instead, the liberal media has published lurid insinuations and exposes about everything from Judge Barrett's character to her Christian faith and even her adopted children. It is the Brett Kavanaugh playbook all over again. But, thankfully, the American people see through it, just as they did the last time. For the most part, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee avoided these kinds of low, personal attacks. Perhaps they have seen the polling so they know they are playing a very weak hand. Instead, they focused on the supposed threat that Judge Barrett will overturn ObamaCare and take away your healthcare. In fact, they focused on ObamaCare so much during Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing, when I turned on the TV, I thought I had I tuned in to the Health Committee, not the Judiciary Committee. But Democrats' attacks on this policy fall just as flat as the media's shameful stories on Judge Barrett's character for the simple reason that Judge Barrett, as a judge, does not make policy. She is not a Senator. She is not standing for elective office. I suspect she wouldn't want to. Her role as a judge is to interpret and apply the law fairly and faithfully, without regard to her own beliefs and convictions. Now, that may be a novel concept for our Democratic friends who view the judiciary as simply another means to advance their leftwing agenda, irrespective of the law and facts, but it is central to Judge Barrett's record on the court of appeals and her judicial philosophy. Her opinions bear that out, and she has applied the law consistently without fear or favor on the Federal Bench, and, I suspect, reached a few outcomes on a personal level that she would have preferred not to, which was always Justice Scalia's gold standard for an impartial and fair judge. That leaves the Democrats with one final argument--nothing more than a process argument. They say that the Republicans are moving too quickly; that we are somehow ramming Judge Barrett through the Senate, possibly, to prevent an adequate examination of her record. But, of course, this argument fails too. It fails badly. Judge Barrett's nomination has proceeded at a pace in line with other recent nominations. Exactly 30 days ago she was nominated, and tomorrow she will be confirmed. That is 11 more days than the Senate deliberated on the nomination of Justice John Paul Stevens, who was confirmed after just 19 days. It is only 12 fewer days than the Senate deliberated on the nomination of Justice Ginsburg herself. And I would note that we went through this with Judge Barrett barely 3 years ago. It had been 5 years for then-Judge Stevens. It had been 13 years for then-Judge Ginsburg. There is not a lot of material for this Senate to have reviewed; less than 3 years of activities by Judge Barrett, fewer than 100 opinions--even a Senator can probably get through those in a couple days. Yet the Democrats have repeatedly asked for delay after delay, though they haven't identified any area in which they lacked adequate time to review her nomination. They haven't identified any bit of information that they don't already have. In fact, some of my Democratic colleagues announced their opposition to her nomination--or any nominee, for that matter--before she was even announced as the nominee. So what do they want more time for, exactly, except to stall? Indeed, far from being rushed, Judge Barrett's nomination doesn't come close to setting the record for speed. That distinction belongs to Justice James Byrnes, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1941 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and confirmed later that day. I guess we could have taken a page from the Democrats' playbook by confirming Judge Barrett last month on the day she was nominated, but instead we took the same careful, consistent, deliberative approach that we took with Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch--no shortcuts, no corners cut, no steps skipped. So, finally, here we are on the cusp of Judge Barrett's confirmation. As a result, the Democrats are threatening to pack the Court, but they were already threatening to pack the Court. The Democrats are threatening, should we confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court, to riot in the streets. Democrats have been rioting in the streets for months. But as the sun sets tomorrow, the Senate will gather, and all of that bluster will once again prove ineffective because Judge Barrett has earned the trust and confidence of the American people and the U.S. Senate. For that reason, Judge Barrett will be confirmed tomorrow night. I congratulate Judge Barrett on this high honor, and I thank her family--her beloved husband Jesse and her seven beautiful children--for sharing her with America. For those seven kids especially: I know that she will always be mom to you, but I trust you won't object if we know her as Justice. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6467 | null | 1,549 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Coronavirus Mr. President, the economy is still struggling. As I said, we are not out of the woods yet, particularly in the areas of hospitality, travel, and entertainment. We are not out of the woods on the virus yet, either, with many States seeing a third wave right now. That is what I would describe is happening in Ohio, my home State. I have watched the numbers every single day this week. Not only are the number of cases increasing, but the hospitalizations went up this week. The number of people in ICU went up and fatalities went up. It is critical that this Congress provide additional relief to help the American people get through this healthcare crisis and economic fallout we have seen. We have done it before. Five times Republicans and Democrats on this floor and over in the House and working with the White House have passed coronavirus legislation--five times. In fact, most of the votes have been unanimous. It is unbelievable because here we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been unanimous. These laws have helped address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free fall that were caused by the virus and the government-imposed shutdowns. And for some of my colleagues who are concerned about the cost, I would just say again--government-imposed shutdowns. Many of these businesses in my home State that are struggling, you know, they were told to shut down, and they do need our help. They deserve our help. The same government that insisted that they not be in business ought to help them now to get back in business and stay in business. The biggest of these bills that this body and the House and the White House worked hard on and passed is called the CARES Act. A lot of people have heard about it. It is a piece of legislation that was very important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. It was passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to nothing. Unfortunately, since May of this year, when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming together for the good of all of us. For months, Democrats insisted that the only way forward was a bill called the $3.5 trillion Heroes Act, which passed the House of Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. It included things unrelated to COVID-19, and you can argue about those things. The SALT--the State and local tax deduction--is in there, as an example. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. It is a tax break, frankly, for wealthier individuals. Most of that tax break would go to people who are wealthy, and about half of it goes to people in the top 1 percent. There are immigration law changes in that legislation that are very controversial. Should we have a debate separately? Of course, but not in a COVID-19 bill. There are other policies in terms of election law and how States would handle their elections that had nothing to do with COVID-19. Also, it was $3.5 trillion. Now, we are facing this year not just the largest deficit in the history of our country but also a debt as a percentage of the economy, which is how most economists look at our fiscal problems--what is the debt as a percentage of the economy? It is as high as it has ever been, with the possible exception of World War II--a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly the economy grew, and we didn't have this big overhang of the entitlement spending that already has us in a structural debt. So $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. When it passed the House, it was the most expensive legislation ever to pass the House of Representatives by far. When it did pass, by the way, POLITICO and others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that they thought had no chance of becoming law. There is a good reason for that--$3.5 trillion and, again, the items there that did not relate to the coronavirus crisis. Since that time, Senate Republicans have provided some reasonable alternatives to this partisan proposal with targeted coronavirus response legislation--bills that help us directly address the healthcare and the economic crisis by investing in bipartisan approaches that we know work. The last legislation that was offered here on Wednesday was about $500 billion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, Democrats probably objected to some specific elements of it, like liability protection, but we should have had the opportunity to debate that and have a discussion. But on Wednesday, Democrats blocked it. Their position has been very clear, as I see it. They are going to stick with Speaker Pelosi no matter what, and I understand that from a negotiating position. They think she is the one negotiating with the White House; therefore, they are not going to get involved. I have talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have expressed the same frustration I am expressing right now. Gosh, why can't we get together between Republicans and Democrats and support something that is a compromise? But I think they have been told by their leadership: No discussion; no debate; we are going to stick with whatever the Speaker wants. Again, coming up to the election, it is my sense that what the Speaker wants is not to have a result. That is my sense. You have heard the President say very clearly he is willing to spend even more than the Speaker wants to spend. I am not suggesting that is the position that every Senate Republican has because many believe we spent a lot of money and we need to be very careful and be much more targeted given the fiscal situation we talked about earlier. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been very interested in getting a result and has, in good faith, been negotiating. But, again, we have not been able to make any progress because the notion is that we are going to stick with the Speaker's position no matter what. So instead of a compromise, we have zero relief. Instead of $3.5 trillion or $2.4 trillion--whatever the number is and whatever the Republican number is--we have zero relief that has been provided in the last several months. There has been sort of an all-or-none attitude--either we do it her way, or we get nothing. Three separate times on this floor, Democrats have even blocked proposals to temporarily extend the Federal unemployment insurance supplement that expired in August so that folks who were relying on that money could continue to make ends meet while we negotiated a long-term solution. This week, they blocked a reasonable approach on unemployment insurance, I believe. It was $300 per week Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment, and they blocked it, saying that wasn't enough and we need to stick with $600. So, again, it is either $600 or nothing. I will say that the $600 benefit is pretty generous. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that 80 percent of the people who are on unemployment insurance going forward--if we continued $600, 80 percent would be making more on unemployment insurance than they would be making at work. Talk to your businesses back home, and what they will tell you is that this has been a problem in getting people back to work when they can make more--sometimes significantly more--on unemployment insurance. But how about $300? How about a compromise? Some people will make more. In fact, a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance than they do at work at $300 but not 80 percent of the people. Some will make more; some will make less. Last week, I finally thought we had a breaking point because the Speaker of the House had Members of her own caucus calling her to work with the White House to pass at that time what was a $1.8 trillion package, but my understanding is, that wasn't good enough. Let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. By the way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority of Senators voted on this past week, on Wednesday--again, a majority but not the supermajority needed to get it passed. First is on the healthcare response, particularly on testing, and in Ohio, we need it right now. We need more money for testing. Republicans and Democrats alike know that is critical to stopping the spread of the disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going back to school, and going back to their local businesses to buy things. We need the Federal help on testing. We also need help to continue investing in developing treatments, and, of course, we need to invest in a vaccine to get a vaccine as quickly as possible. The targeted bill that came to the House this past week did just that--provided $16 billion for increased testing and contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. That is the kind of support we need right now Second, we agreed that Congress shouldn't continue to have this situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. We all want to help small businesses. That was in the targeted bill also. One way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this PPP program--the paycheck protection program--be in effect, and the targeted legislation did just that. It restarted the Paycheck Protection Program, which was included in the CARES Act but expired on August 8. So since August 8, we haven't had it. This was a smart program that provided low-interest loansto small businesses--loans that effectively became grants if they used them for certain purposes, like payroll to keep people employed but also their rent and their mortgages and utilities. At least 140,000 Ohio businesses in my State of Ohio--140,000 businesses--small businesses, have benefited from the PPP, saving what we think are at least 1.9 million jobs. Wow. We all know we need to extend that program. I think everybody agrees on that. I don't know a Senator in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't had the experience back home of a small business saying: I couldn't have stayed open without this. I have had that conversation dozens of times. A lot of these businesses were able to use this PPP loan to weather the storm. Some have seen their businesses now pick back up, and they are hiring again, and that is great. I recently had a virtual roundtable with manufacturers all over Northeast Ohio--the Cleveland area and the Akron area. They were hit hard by the early shutdowns. They put their businesses at risk, but thanks to the PPP loans they received, they were able to keep their employees on payroll and keep the doors open. Do you know what most of them did? They did something related to helping. Some made ventilators. Some made masks. Some made gowns. So they were able, during this slow time, to actually help to push back against the coronavirus. Now they are back in business. Now they are able to employ people, to hire people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. That is what we want. There are others, however, who desperately need continued PPP just to stay in business. I mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, the entertainment business, and the travel business. They have to have the PPP loans now--now--or they may close. Some have already closed because the program has been shut down since August 8 because we can't seem to get our act together to provide the help. That was in the targeted bill. By the way, it makes PPP more targeted and more focused because we don't want to waste money; we want to focus it on companies that really need it. That is bipartisan also. Let's do it. Beyond PPP, Congress should help invest in businesses to reopen safely and effectively. Small business owners I have spoken to during this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me that they are eager to reopen but they want to open in a safe manner. That is the sweet spot here. We don't want to close down the economy, but we do want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely. There are examples of how we can do that that this Congress should pass on a bipartisan basis. One is an expanded tax credit to incentivize new hiring through the work opportunity tax credit and the employee retention tax credit. We also have a new tax credit called the healthy workplace tax credit. It is very simple. It helps businesses pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer, and face coverings. These are credits against payroll tax that will help businesses rehire workers, reopen safely, and take these critical steps to let our economy recover. I will continue to push this in every coronavirus package. You know what, it has total bipartisan appeal because it is exactly what we ought to be doing--reopening, yes, but doing it safely. Let's give businesses the incentives to do that. It is expensive to purchase PPE, particularly when you have tight revenues, which a lot of businesses do right now. They want the help to be able to do it and do it right. Third, of course, we agree we need to invest in our schools and our State and local governments. With colleges and K-12 education trying to reopen around the country, it is critical that students don't lose any more progress in the classroom. We need to make sure schools have these resources to reopen and to stay open with adequate protective gear and social distancing policies and, again, plexiglass and other things to make it safe. The $105 billion that was in this legislation on Wednesday that was voted down--$105 billion for ensuring that schools are safe--is actually more than was in the original House-passed Heroes Act. So, let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the schools is a reason to vote no. State and local governments need support and more flexibility too. Ohio cities have been hit particularly hard because they rely on revenue from income taxes more than other cities around the country, and that income tax revenue has been lower than any of their projections. The targeted bill would have helped by extending the timeline in which CARES funding could be spent beyond the end of this year. I have heard this repeatedly from our Governor in Ohio, Mike DeWine, and also from local officials in Ohio: Don't make us spend all the money by yearend. We can spend it more effectively if you give us some flexibility on that. None of us should want to do that. We always complain about the Federal rule where you are telling an agency ``You have to spend the money by yearend; use it or lose it'' because it encourages them to go ahead and spend it, even though they don't need to, so they can have the same budget next year. Let's let them have the flexibility to spend the money as they need it. We all know now that this virus isn't going away in calendar year 2020. It is going to be around in 2021. Let's give them that flexibility. With this extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, including for public safety--police, fire, EMS. Fourth, we all agree we have to make sure Americans have adequate access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. Most of us in this Chamber have probably utilized telehealth services during this pandemic, and we know that they work. Telehealth has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, particularly for those fighting addiction, for those who have behavioral health issues, mental health issues, who can't currently receive in-person care to help in their recovery. I have worked with the Trump administration to expand telehealth and delivery options for opioid treatment, which, in some instances, has even allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. I love hearing that--that in this dark cloud, one silver lining is that telehealth has actually been successful and helped people, including mental health providers and drug treatment providers, to reach new people whom they couldn't reach previously. However, the reforms that we have in place now, based on the previous legislation I talked about, are only temporary. The bipartisan legislation we have introduced, along with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, is to make these telehealth options permanent. It is called the TREATS Act. That should be in any coronavirus package, and it would be. Finally, we need to chart a path forward on the issue of expanded unemployment insurance. Unemployment is down from the highest we saw in the spring, and it has been very encouraging to see how many new jobs have come back. It exceeded all expectations, everybody's--OMB's, CBO's, outside projections. But unemployment is still way too high. We are still at 8.9 percent in Ohio, and it is probably about 8 percent nationally. Think of this. We went from the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades just before this virus, more like 3.5 percent--record lows for Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, women--and now we have about 8 percent unemployment--more than double that. I said earlier that Congress allowed the original unemployment insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. When that happened, the Trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which had received funding from the CARES Act to temporarily add a $300-per-week Federal supplement called the Lost Wage Assistance Program. This program funded 6 weeks of expanded unemployment insurance and also encouraged States to provide their own match. What happened was that every State but two took the government up on that. They didn't add their match, but they did take the 300 bucks, and a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own were able to be helped through this Executive action. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where this program has been tapped out. Why? Because the $44 billion that was set aside in the Disaster Relief Fund is gone, leaving $25 billion to deal with natural disasters, which is what the Disaster Relief Fund is intended to do. And they need that money. We shouldn't use any more of that. So we are back to square one. People who have had unemployment insurance since the disaster began because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some businesses where they can't go back--a lot of those folks now are seeing just a State benefit or no benefit. The Republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by providing $300 per week through December 27--basically, through the end of the year. That was in the package that was just voted down. So Democrats, who say they want $600, voted down $300 because it wasn't enough. Well, somebody who is on unemployment is probably wondering: Why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that I can pay my rent, I can pay my car payment, I can make ends meet, even though I can't go back to my job? So if nothing else comes out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's at least provide more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund so that we can continue to respond at the executive branch level. If Congress can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way the administration was doing it for 6 weeks. We have proposed legislation to do just that, replenishing the Disaster Relief Fund so that this vital unemployment insurance supplement can continue that the administration had in place. If we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? Why can't we just pass PPP? Why can't we just pass something for testing? Why can't we just pass something to ensure that we are helping right now during this crisis? The bottom line is that there is still a lot for Congress to do to help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves in. Between bolstering our healthcare response, promoting a stronger and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to our schools, providing that flexibility I talked about earlier to governments, ensuring that our constituents can make ends meet as they deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we have a lot of opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic. I hope things will change soon. Maybe it will change on the election. Maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. I hope so. I hope that at least in the lameduck session of Congress, if we can't get our act together this week, we can figure out how to recapture that spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring, to negotiate in good faith, come to an agreement--and fast. Our constituents need it. Let's get it done. I yield back my time | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6468-2 | null | 1,550 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | Coronavirus Mr. President, the economy is still struggling. As I said, we are not out of the woods yet, particularly in the areas of hospitality, travel, and entertainment. We are not out of the woods on the virus yet, either, with many States seeing a third wave right now. That is what I would describe is happening in Ohio, my home State. I have watched the numbers every single day this week. Not only are the number of cases increasing, but the hospitalizations went up this week. The number of people in ICU went up and fatalities went up. It is critical that this Congress provide additional relief to help the American people get through this healthcare crisis and economic fallout we have seen. We have done it before. Five times Republicans and Democrats on this floor and over in the House and working with the White House have passed coronavirus legislation--five times. In fact, most of the votes have been unanimous. It is unbelievable because here we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been unanimous. These laws have helped address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free fall that were caused by the virus and the government-imposed shutdowns. And for some of my colleagues who are concerned about the cost, I would just say again--government-imposed shutdowns. Many of these businesses in my home State that are struggling, you know, they were told to shut down, and they do need our help. They deserve our help. The same government that insisted that they not be in business ought to help them now to get back in business and stay in business. The biggest of these bills that this body and the House and the White House worked hard on and passed is called the CARES Act. A lot of people have heard about it. It is a piece of legislation that was very important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. It was passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to nothing. Unfortunately, since May of this year, when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming together for the good of all of us. For months, Democrats insisted that the only way forward was a bill called the $3.5 trillion Heroes Act, which passed the House of Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. It included things unrelated to COVID-19, and you can argue about those things. The SALT--the State and local tax deduction--is in there, as an example. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. It is a tax break, frankly, for wealthier individuals. Most of that tax break would go to people who are wealthy, and about half of it goes to people in the top 1 percent. There are immigration law changes in that legislation that are very controversial. Should we have a debate separately? Of course, but not in a COVID-19 bill. There are other policies in terms of election law and how States would handle their elections that had nothing to do with COVID-19. Also, it was $3.5 trillion. Now, we are facing this year not just the largest deficit in the history of our country but also a debt as a percentage of the economy, which is how most economists look at our fiscal problems--what is the debt as a percentage of the economy? It is as high as it has ever been, with the possible exception of World War II--a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly the economy grew, and we didn't have this big overhang of the entitlement spending that already has us in a structural debt. So $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. When it passed the House, it was the most expensive legislation ever to pass the House of Representatives by far. When it did pass, by the way, POLITICO and others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that they thought had no chance of becoming law. There is a good reason for that--$3.5 trillion and, again, the items there that did not relate to the coronavirus crisis. Since that time, Senate Republicans have provided some reasonable alternatives to this partisan proposal with targeted coronavirus response legislation--bills that help us directly address the healthcare and the economic crisis by investing in bipartisan approaches that we know work. The last legislation that was offered here on Wednesday was about $500 billion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, Democrats probably objected to some specific elements of it, like liability protection, but we should have had the opportunity to debate that and have a discussion. But on Wednesday, Democrats blocked it. Their position has been very clear, as I see it. They are going to stick with Speaker Pelosi no matter what, and I understand that from a negotiating position. They think she is the one negotiating with the White House; therefore, they are not going to get involved. I have talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have expressed the same frustration I am expressing right now. Gosh, why can't we get together between Republicans and Democrats and support something that is a compromise? But I think they have been told by their leadership: No discussion; no debate; we are going to stick with whatever the Speaker wants. Again, coming up to the election, it is my sense that what the Speaker wants is not to have a result. That is my sense. You have heard the President say very clearly he is willing to spend even more than the Speaker wants to spend. I am not suggesting that is the position that every Senate Republican has because many believe we spent a lot of money and we need to be very careful and be much more targeted given the fiscal situation we talked about earlier. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been very interested in getting a result and has, in good faith, been negotiating. But, again, we have not been able to make any progress because the notion is that we are going to stick with the Speaker's position no matter what. So instead of a compromise, we have zero relief. Instead of $3.5 trillion or $2.4 trillion--whatever the number is and whatever the Republican number is--we have zero relief that has been provided in the last several months. There has been sort of an all-or-none attitude--either we do it her way, or we get nothing. Three separate times on this floor, Democrats have even blocked proposals to temporarily extend the Federal unemployment insurance supplement that expired in August so that folks who were relying on that money could continue to make ends meet while we negotiated a long-term solution. This week, they blocked a reasonable approach on unemployment insurance, I believe. It was $300 per week Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment, and they blocked it, saying that wasn't enough and we need to stick with $600. So, again, it is either $600 or nothing. I will say that the $600 benefit is pretty generous. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that 80 percent of the people who are on unemployment insurance going forward--if we continued $600, 80 percent would be making more on unemployment insurance than they would be making at work. Talk to your businesses back home, and what they will tell you is that this has been a problem in getting people back to work when they can make more--sometimes significantly more--on unemployment insurance. But how about $300? How about a compromise? Some people will make more. In fact, a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance than they do at work at $300 but not 80 percent of the people. Some will make more; some will make less. Last week, I finally thought we had a breaking point because the Speaker of the House had Members of her own caucus calling her to work with the White House to pass at that time what was a $1.8 trillion package, but my understanding is, that wasn't good enough. Let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. By the way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority of Senators voted on this past week, on Wednesday--again, a majority but not the supermajority needed to get it passed. First is on the healthcare response, particularly on testing, and in Ohio, we need it right now. We need more money for testing. Republicans and Democrats alike know that is critical to stopping the spread of the disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going back to school, and going back to their local businesses to buy things. We need the Federal help on testing. We also need help to continue investing in developing treatments, and, of course, we need to invest in a vaccine to get a vaccine as quickly as possible. The targeted bill that came to the House this past week did just that--provided $16 billion for increased testing and contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. That is the kind of support we need right now Second, we agreed that Congress shouldn't continue to have this situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. We all want to help small businesses. That was in the targeted bill also. One way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this PPP program--the paycheck protection program--be in effect, and the targeted legislation did just that. It restarted the Paycheck Protection Program, which was included in the CARES Act but expired on August 8. So since August 8, we haven't had it. This was a smart program that provided low-interest loansto small businesses--loans that effectively became grants if they used them for certain purposes, like payroll to keep people employed but also their rent and their mortgages and utilities. At least 140,000 Ohio businesses in my State of Ohio--140,000 businesses--small businesses, have benefited from the PPP, saving what we think are at least 1.9 million jobs. Wow. We all know we need to extend that program. I think everybody agrees on that. I don't know a Senator in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't had the experience back home of a small business saying: I couldn't have stayed open without this. I have had that conversation dozens of times. A lot of these businesses were able to use this PPP loan to weather the storm. Some have seen their businesses now pick back up, and they are hiring again, and that is great. I recently had a virtual roundtable with manufacturers all over Northeast Ohio--the Cleveland area and the Akron area. They were hit hard by the early shutdowns. They put their businesses at risk, but thanks to the PPP loans they received, they were able to keep their employees on payroll and keep the doors open. Do you know what most of them did? They did something related to helping. Some made ventilators. Some made masks. Some made gowns. So they were able, during this slow time, to actually help to push back against the coronavirus. Now they are back in business. Now they are able to employ people, to hire people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. That is what we want. There are others, however, who desperately need continued PPP just to stay in business. I mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, the entertainment business, and the travel business. They have to have the PPP loans now--now--or they may close. Some have already closed because the program has been shut down since August 8 because we can't seem to get our act together to provide the help. That was in the targeted bill. By the way, it makes PPP more targeted and more focused because we don't want to waste money; we want to focus it on companies that really need it. That is bipartisan also. Let's do it. Beyond PPP, Congress should help invest in businesses to reopen safely and effectively. Small business owners I have spoken to during this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me that they are eager to reopen but they want to open in a safe manner. That is the sweet spot here. We don't want to close down the economy, but we do want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely. There are examples of how we can do that that this Congress should pass on a bipartisan basis. One is an expanded tax credit to incentivize new hiring through the work opportunity tax credit and the employee retention tax credit. We also have a new tax credit called the healthy workplace tax credit. It is very simple. It helps businesses pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer, and face coverings. These are credits against payroll tax that will help businesses rehire workers, reopen safely, and take these critical steps to let our economy recover. I will continue to push this in every coronavirus package. You know what, it has total bipartisan appeal because it is exactly what we ought to be doing--reopening, yes, but doing it safely. Let's give businesses the incentives to do that. It is expensive to purchase PPE, particularly when you have tight revenues, which a lot of businesses do right now. They want the help to be able to do it and do it right. Third, of course, we agree we need to invest in our schools and our State and local governments. With colleges and K-12 education trying to reopen around the country, it is critical that students don't lose any more progress in the classroom. We need to make sure schools have these resources to reopen and to stay open with adequate protective gear and social distancing policies and, again, plexiglass and other things to make it safe. The $105 billion that was in this legislation on Wednesday that was voted down--$105 billion for ensuring that schools are safe--is actually more than was in the original House-passed Heroes Act. So, let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the schools is a reason to vote no. State and local governments need support and more flexibility too. Ohio cities have been hit particularly hard because they rely on revenue from income taxes more than other cities around the country, and that income tax revenue has been lower than any of their projections. The targeted bill would have helped by extending the timeline in which CARES funding could be spent beyond the end of this year. I have heard this repeatedly from our Governor in Ohio, Mike DeWine, and also from local officials in Ohio: Don't make us spend all the money by yearend. We can spend it more effectively if you give us some flexibility on that. None of us should want to do that. We always complain about the Federal rule where you are telling an agency ``You have to spend the money by yearend; use it or lose it'' because it encourages them to go ahead and spend it, even though they don't need to, so they can have the same budget next year. Let's let them have the flexibility to spend the money as they need it. We all know now that this virus isn't going away in calendar year 2020. It is going to be around in 2021. Let's give them that flexibility. With this extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, including for public safety--police, fire, EMS. Fourth, we all agree we have to make sure Americans have adequate access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. Most of us in this Chamber have probably utilized telehealth services during this pandemic, and we know that they work. Telehealth has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, particularly for those fighting addiction, for those who have behavioral health issues, mental health issues, who can't currently receive in-person care to help in their recovery. I have worked with the Trump administration to expand telehealth and delivery options for opioid treatment, which, in some instances, has even allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. I love hearing that--that in this dark cloud, one silver lining is that telehealth has actually been successful and helped people, including mental health providers and drug treatment providers, to reach new people whom they couldn't reach previously. However, the reforms that we have in place now, based on the previous legislation I talked about, are only temporary. The bipartisan legislation we have introduced, along with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, is to make these telehealth options permanent. It is called the TREATS Act. That should be in any coronavirus package, and it would be. Finally, we need to chart a path forward on the issue of expanded unemployment insurance. Unemployment is down from the highest we saw in the spring, and it has been very encouraging to see how many new jobs have come back. It exceeded all expectations, everybody's--OMB's, CBO's, outside projections. But unemployment is still way too high. We are still at 8.9 percent in Ohio, and it is probably about 8 percent nationally. Think of this. We went from the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades just before this virus, more like 3.5 percent--record lows for Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, women--and now we have about 8 percent unemployment--more than double that. I said earlier that Congress allowed the original unemployment insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. When that happened, the Trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which had received funding from the CARES Act to temporarily add a $300-per-week Federal supplement called the Lost Wage Assistance Program. This program funded 6 weeks of expanded unemployment insurance and also encouraged States to provide their own match. What happened was that every State but two took the government up on that. They didn't add their match, but they did take the 300 bucks, and a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own were able to be helped through this Executive action. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where this program has been tapped out. Why? Because the $44 billion that was set aside in the Disaster Relief Fund is gone, leaving $25 billion to deal with natural disasters, which is what the Disaster Relief Fund is intended to do. And they need that money. We shouldn't use any more of that. So we are back to square one. People who have had unemployment insurance since the disaster began because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some businesses where they can't go back--a lot of those folks now are seeing just a State benefit or no benefit. The Republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by providing $300 per week through December 27--basically, through the end of the year. That was in the package that was just voted down. So Democrats, who say they want $600, voted down $300 because it wasn't enough. Well, somebody who is on unemployment is probably wondering: Why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that I can pay my rent, I can pay my car payment, I can make ends meet, even though I can't go back to my job? So if nothing else comes out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's at least provide more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund so that we can continue to respond at the executive branch level. If Congress can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way the administration was doing it for 6 weeks. We have proposed legislation to do just that, replenishing the Disaster Relief Fund so that this vital unemployment insurance supplement can continue that the administration had in place. If we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? Why can't we just pass PPP? Why can't we just pass something for testing? Why can't we just pass something to ensure that we are helping right now during this crisis? The bottom line is that there is still a lot for Congress to do to help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves in. Between bolstering our healthcare response, promoting a stronger and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to our schools, providing that flexibility I talked about earlier to governments, ensuring that our constituents can make ends meet as they deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we have a lot of opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic. I hope things will change soon. Maybe it will change on the election. Maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. I hope so. I hope that at least in the lameduck session of Congress, if we can't get our act together this week, we can figure out how to recapture that spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring, to negotiate in good faith, come to an agreement--and fast. Our constituents need it. Let's get it done. I yield back my time | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6468-2 | null | 1,551 |
formal | entitlement spending | null | racist | Coronavirus Mr. President, the economy is still struggling. As I said, we are not out of the woods yet, particularly in the areas of hospitality, travel, and entertainment. We are not out of the woods on the virus yet, either, with many States seeing a third wave right now. That is what I would describe is happening in Ohio, my home State. I have watched the numbers every single day this week. Not only are the number of cases increasing, but the hospitalizations went up this week. The number of people in ICU went up and fatalities went up. It is critical that this Congress provide additional relief to help the American people get through this healthcare crisis and economic fallout we have seen. We have done it before. Five times Republicans and Democrats on this floor and over in the House and working with the White House have passed coronavirus legislation--five times. In fact, most of the votes have been unanimous. It is unbelievable because here we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been unanimous. These laws have helped address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free fall that were caused by the virus and the government-imposed shutdowns. And for some of my colleagues who are concerned about the cost, I would just say again--government-imposed shutdowns. Many of these businesses in my home State that are struggling, you know, they were told to shut down, and they do need our help. They deserve our help. The same government that insisted that they not be in business ought to help them now to get back in business and stay in business. The biggest of these bills that this body and the House and the White House worked hard on and passed is called the CARES Act. A lot of people have heard about it. It is a piece of legislation that was very important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. It was passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to nothing. Unfortunately, since May of this year, when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming together for the good of all of us. For months, Democrats insisted that the only way forward was a bill called the $3.5 trillion Heroes Act, which passed the House of Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. It included things unrelated to COVID-19, and you can argue about those things. The SALT--the State and local tax deduction--is in there, as an example. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. It is a tax break, frankly, for wealthier individuals. Most of that tax break would go to people who are wealthy, and about half of it goes to people in the top 1 percent. There are immigration law changes in that legislation that are very controversial. Should we have a debate separately? Of course, but not in a COVID-19 bill. There are other policies in terms of election law and how States would handle their elections that had nothing to do with COVID-19. Also, it was $3.5 trillion. Now, we are facing this year not just the largest deficit in the history of our country but also a debt as a percentage of the economy, which is how most economists look at our fiscal problems--what is the debt as a percentage of the economy? It is as high as it has ever been, with the possible exception of World War II--a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly the economy grew, and we didn't have this big overhang of the entitlement spending that already has us in a structural debt. So $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. When it passed the House, it was the most expensive legislation ever to pass the House of Representatives by far. When it did pass, by the way, POLITICO and others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that they thought had no chance of becoming law. There is a good reason for that--$3.5 trillion and, again, the items there that did not relate to the coronavirus crisis. Since that time, Senate Republicans have provided some reasonable alternatives to this partisan proposal with targeted coronavirus response legislation--bills that help us directly address the healthcare and the economic crisis by investing in bipartisan approaches that we know work. The last legislation that was offered here on Wednesday was about $500 billion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, Democrats probably objected to some specific elements of it, like liability protection, but we should have had the opportunity to debate that and have a discussion. But on Wednesday, Democrats blocked it. Their position has been very clear, as I see it. They are going to stick with Speaker Pelosi no matter what, and I understand that from a negotiating position. They think she is the one negotiating with the White House; therefore, they are not going to get involved. I have talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have expressed the same frustration I am expressing right now. Gosh, why can't we get together between Republicans and Democrats and support something that is a compromise? But I think they have been told by their leadership: No discussion; no debate; we are going to stick with whatever the Speaker wants. Again, coming up to the election, it is my sense that what the Speaker wants is not to have a result. That is my sense. You have heard the President say very clearly he is willing to spend even more than the Speaker wants to spend. I am not suggesting that is the position that every Senate Republican has because many believe we spent a lot of money and we need to be very careful and be much more targeted given the fiscal situation we talked about earlier. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been very interested in getting a result and has, in good faith, been negotiating. But, again, we have not been able to make any progress because the notion is that we are going to stick with the Speaker's position no matter what. So instead of a compromise, we have zero relief. Instead of $3.5 trillion or $2.4 trillion--whatever the number is and whatever the Republican number is--we have zero relief that has been provided in the last several months. There has been sort of an all-or-none attitude--either we do it her way, or we get nothing. Three separate times on this floor, Democrats have even blocked proposals to temporarily extend the Federal unemployment insurance supplement that expired in August so that folks who were relying on that money could continue to make ends meet while we negotiated a long-term solution. This week, they blocked a reasonable approach on unemployment insurance, I believe. It was $300 per week Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment, and they blocked it, saying that wasn't enough and we need to stick with $600. So, again, it is either $600 or nothing. I will say that the $600 benefit is pretty generous. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that 80 percent of the people who are on unemployment insurance going forward--if we continued $600, 80 percent would be making more on unemployment insurance than they would be making at work. Talk to your businesses back home, and what they will tell you is that this has been a problem in getting people back to work when they can make more--sometimes significantly more--on unemployment insurance. But how about $300? How about a compromise? Some people will make more. In fact, a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance than they do at work at $300 but not 80 percent of the people. Some will make more; some will make less. Last week, I finally thought we had a breaking point because the Speaker of the House had Members of her own caucus calling her to work with the White House to pass at that time what was a $1.8 trillion package, but my understanding is, that wasn't good enough. Let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. By the way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority of Senators voted on this past week, on Wednesday--again, a majority but not the supermajority needed to get it passed. First is on the healthcare response, particularly on testing, and in Ohio, we need it right now. We need more money for testing. Republicans and Democrats alike know that is critical to stopping the spread of the disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going back to school, and going back to their local businesses to buy things. We need the Federal help on testing. We also need help to continue investing in developing treatments, and, of course, we need to invest in a vaccine to get a vaccine as quickly as possible. The targeted bill that came to the House this past week did just that--provided $16 billion for increased testing and contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. That is the kind of support we need right now Second, we agreed that Congress shouldn't continue to have this situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. We all want to help small businesses. That was in the targeted bill also. One way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this PPP program--the paycheck protection program--be in effect, and the targeted legislation did just that. It restarted the Paycheck Protection Program, which was included in the CARES Act but expired on August 8. So since August 8, we haven't had it. This was a smart program that provided low-interest loansto small businesses--loans that effectively became grants if they used them for certain purposes, like payroll to keep people employed but also their rent and their mortgages and utilities. At least 140,000 Ohio businesses in my State of Ohio--140,000 businesses--small businesses, have benefited from the PPP, saving what we think are at least 1.9 million jobs. Wow. We all know we need to extend that program. I think everybody agrees on that. I don't know a Senator in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't had the experience back home of a small business saying: I couldn't have stayed open without this. I have had that conversation dozens of times. A lot of these businesses were able to use this PPP loan to weather the storm. Some have seen their businesses now pick back up, and they are hiring again, and that is great. I recently had a virtual roundtable with manufacturers all over Northeast Ohio--the Cleveland area and the Akron area. They were hit hard by the early shutdowns. They put their businesses at risk, but thanks to the PPP loans they received, they were able to keep their employees on payroll and keep the doors open. Do you know what most of them did? They did something related to helping. Some made ventilators. Some made masks. Some made gowns. So they were able, during this slow time, to actually help to push back against the coronavirus. Now they are back in business. Now they are able to employ people, to hire people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. That is what we want. There are others, however, who desperately need continued PPP just to stay in business. I mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, the entertainment business, and the travel business. They have to have the PPP loans now--now--or they may close. Some have already closed because the program has been shut down since August 8 because we can't seem to get our act together to provide the help. That was in the targeted bill. By the way, it makes PPP more targeted and more focused because we don't want to waste money; we want to focus it on companies that really need it. That is bipartisan also. Let's do it. Beyond PPP, Congress should help invest in businesses to reopen safely and effectively. Small business owners I have spoken to during this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me that they are eager to reopen but they want to open in a safe manner. That is the sweet spot here. We don't want to close down the economy, but we do want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely. There are examples of how we can do that that this Congress should pass on a bipartisan basis. One is an expanded tax credit to incentivize new hiring through the work opportunity tax credit and the employee retention tax credit. We also have a new tax credit called the healthy workplace tax credit. It is very simple. It helps businesses pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer, and face coverings. These are credits against payroll tax that will help businesses rehire workers, reopen safely, and take these critical steps to let our economy recover. I will continue to push this in every coronavirus package. You know what, it has total bipartisan appeal because it is exactly what we ought to be doing--reopening, yes, but doing it safely. Let's give businesses the incentives to do that. It is expensive to purchase PPE, particularly when you have tight revenues, which a lot of businesses do right now. They want the help to be able to do it and do it right. Third, of course, we agree we need to invest in our schools and our State and local governments. With colleges and K-12 education trying to reopen around the country, it is critical that students don't lose any more progress in the classroom. We need to make sure schools have these resources to reopen and to stay open with adequate protective gear and social distancing policies and, again, plexiglass and other things to make it safe. The $105 billion that was in this legislation on Wednesday that was voted down--$105 billion for ensuring that schools are safe--is actually more than was in the original House-passed Heroes Act. So, let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the schools is a reason to vote no. State and local governments need support and more flexibility too. Ohio cities have been hit particularly hard because they rely on revenue from income taxes more than other cities around the country, and that income tax revenue has been lower than any of their projections. The targeted bill would have helped by extending the timeline in which CARES funding could be spent beyond the end of this year. I have heard this repeatedly from our Governor in Ohio, Mike DeWine, and also from local officials in Ohio: Don't make us spend all the money by yearend. We can spend it more effectively if you give us some flexibility on that. None of us should want to do that. We always complain about the Federal rule where you are telling an agency ``You have to spend the money by yearend; use it or lose it'' because it encourages them to go ahead and spend it, even though they don't need to, so they can have the same budget next year. Let's let them have the flexibility to spend the money as they need it. We all know now that this virus isn't going away in calendar year 2020. It is going to be around in 2021. Let's give them that flexibility. With this extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, including for public safety--police, fire, EMS. Fourth, we all agree we have to make sure Americans have adequate access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. Most of us in this Chamber have probably utilized telehealth services during this pandemic, and we know that they work. Telehealth has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, particularly for those fighting addiction, for those who have behavioral health issues, mental health issues, who can't currently receive in-person care to help in their recovery. I have worked with the Trump administration to expand telehealth and delivery options for opioid treatment, which, in some instances, has even allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. I love hearing that--that in this dark cloud, one silver lining is that telehealth has actually been successful and helped people, including mental health providers and drug treatment providers, to reach new people whom they couldn't reach previously. However, the reforms that we have in place now, based on the previous legislation I talked about, are only temporary. The bipartisan legislation we have introduced, along with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, is to make these telehealth options permanent. It is called the TREATS Act. That should be in any coronavirus package, and it would be. Finally, we need to chart a path forward on the issue of expanded unemployment insurance. Unemployment is down from the highest we saw in the spring, and it has been very encouraging to see how many new jobs have come back. It exceeded all expectations, everybody's--OMB's, CBO's, outside projections. But unemployment is still way too high. We are still at 8.9 percent in Ohio, and it is probably about 8 percent nationally. Think of this. We went from the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades just before this virus, more like 3.5 percent--record lows for Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, women--and now we have about 8 percent unemployment--more than double that. I said earlier that Congress allowed the original unemployment insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. When that happened, the Trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which had received funding from the CARES Act to temporarily add a $300-per-week Federal supplement called the Lost Wage Assistance Program. This program funded 6 weeks of expanded unemployment insurance and also encouraged States to provide their own match. What happened was that every State but two took the government up on that. They didn't add their match, but they did take the 300 bucks, and a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own were able to be helped through this Executive action. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where this program has been tapped out. Why? Because the $44 billion that was set aside in the Disaster Relief Fund is gone, leaving $25 billion to deal with natural disasters, which is what the Disaster Relief Fund is intended to do. And they need that money. We shouldn't use any more of that. So we are back to square one. People who have had unemployment insurance since the disaster began because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some businesses where they can't go back--a lot of those folks now are seeing just a State benefit or no benefit. The Republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by providing $300 per week through December 27--basically, through the end of the year. That was in the package that was just voted down. So Democrats, who say they want $600, voted down $300 because it wasn't enough. Well, somebody who is on unemployment is probably wondering: Why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that I can pay my rent, I can pay my car payment, I can make ends meet, even though I can't go back to my job? So if nothing else comes out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's at least provide more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund so that we can continue to respond at the executive branch level. If Congress can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way the administration was doing it for 6 weeks. We have proposed legislation to do just that, replenishing the Disaster Relief Fund so that this vital unemployment insurance supplement can continue that the administration had in place. If we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? Why can't we just pass PPP? Why can't we just pass something for testing? Why can't we just pass something to ensure that we are helping right now during this crisis? The bottom line is that there is still a lot for Congress to do to help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves in. Between bolstering our healthcare response, promoting a stronger and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to our schools, providing that flexibility I talked about earlier to governments, ensuring that our constituents can make ends meet as they deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we have a lot of opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic. I hope things will change soon. Maybe it will change on the election. Maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. I hope so. I hope that at least in the lameduck session of Congress, if we can't get our act together this week, we can figure out how to recapture that spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring, to negotiate in good faith, come to an agreement--and fast. Our constituents need it. Let's get it done. I yield back my time | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6468-2 | null | 1,552 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Coronavirus Mr. President, the economy is still struggling. As I said, we are not out of the woods yet, particularly in the areas of hospitality, travel, and entertainment. We are not out of the woods on the virus yet, either, with many States seeing a third wave right now. That is what I would describe is happening in Ohio, my home State. I have watched the numbers every single day this week. Not only are the number of cases increasing, but the hospitalizations went up this week. The number of people in ICU went up and fatalities went up. It is critical that this Congress provide additional relief to help the American people get through this healthcare crisis and economic fallout we have seen. We have done it before. Five times Republicans and Democrats on this floor and over in the House and working with the White House have passed coronavirus legislation--five times. In fact, most of the votes have been unanimous. It is unbelievable because here we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been unanimous. These laws have helped address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free fall that were caused by the virus and the government-imposed shutdowns. And for some of my colleagues who are concerned about the cost, I would just say again--government-imposed shutdowns. Many of these businesses in my home State that are struggling, you know, they were told to shut down, and they do need our help. They deserve our help. The same government that insisted that they not be in business ought to help them now to get back in business and stay in business. The biggest of these bills that this body and the House and the White House worked hard on and passed is called the CARES Act. A lot of people have heard about it. It is a piece of legislation that was very important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. It was passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to nothing. Unfortunately, since May of this year, when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming together for the good of all of us. For months, Democrats insisted that the only way forward was a bill called the $3.5 trillion Heroes Act, which passed the House of Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. It included things unrelated to COVID-19, and you can argue about those things. The SALT--the State and local tax deduction--is in there, as an example. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. It is a tax break, frankly, for wealthier individuals. Most of that tax break would go to people who are wealthy, and about half of it goes to people in the top 1 percent. There are immigration law changes in that legislation that are very controversial. Should we have a debate separately? Of course, but not in a COVID-19 bill. There are other policies in terms of election law and how States would handle their elections that had nothing to do with COVID-19. Also, it was $3.5 trillion. Now, we are facing this year not just the largest deficit in the history of our country but also a debt as a percentage of the economy, which is how most economists look at our fiscal problems--what is the debt as a percentage of the economy? It is as high as it has ever been, with the possible exception of World War II--a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly the economy grew, and we didn't have this big overhang of the entitlement spending that already has us in a structural debt. So $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. When it passed the House, it was the most expensive legislation ever to pass the House of Representatives by far. When it did pass, by the way, POLITICO and others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that they thought had no chance of becoming law. There is a good reason for that--$3.5 trillion and, again, the items there that did not relate to the coronavirus crisis. Since that time, Senate Republicans have provided some reasonable alternatives to this partisan proposal with targeted coronavirus response legislation--bills that help us directly address the healthcare and the economic crisis by investing in bipartisan approaches that we know work. The last legislation that was offered here on Wednesday was about $500 billion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, Democrats probably objected to some specific elements of it, like liability protection, but we should have had the opportunity to debate that and have a discussion. But on Wednesday, Democrats blocked it. Their position has been very clear, as I see it. They are going to stick with Speaker Pelosi no matter what, and I understand that from a negotiating position. They think she is the one negotiating with the White House; therefore, they are not going to get involved. I have talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have expressed the same frustration I am expressing right now. Gosh, why can't we get together between Republicans and Democrats and support something that is a compromise? But I think they have been told by their leadership: No discussion; no debate; we are going to stick with whatever the Speaker wants. Again, coming up to the election, it is my sense that what the Speaker wants is not to have a result. That is my sense. You have heard the President say very clearly he is willing to spend even more than the Speaker wants to spend. I am not suggesting that is the position that every Senate Republican has because many believe we spent a lot of money and we need to be very careful and be much more targeted given the fiscal situation we talked about earlier. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been very interested in getting a result and has, in good faith, been negotiating. But, again, we have not been able to make any progress because the notion is that we are going to stick with the Speaker's position no matter what. So instead of a compromise, we have zero relief. Instead of $3.5 trillion or $2.4 trillion--whatever the number is and whatever the Republican number is--we have zero relief that has been provided in the last several months. There has been sort of an all-or-none attitude--either we do it her way, or we get nothing. Three separate times on this floor, Democrats have even blocked proposals to temporarily extend the Federal unemployment insurance supplement that expired in August so that folks who were relying on that money could continue to make ends meet while we negotiated a long-term solution. This week, they blocked a reasonable approach on unemployment insurance, I believe. It was $300 per week Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment, and they blocked it, saying that wasn't enough and we need to stick with $600. So, again, it is either $600 or nothing. I will say that the $600 benefit is pretty generous. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that 80 percent of the people who are on unemployment insurance going forward--if we continued $600, 80 percent would be making more on unemployment insurance than they would be making at work. Talk to your businesses back home, and what they will tell you is that this has been a problem in getting people back to work when they can make more--sometimes significantly more--on unemployment insurance. But how about $300? How about a compromise? Some people will make more. In fact, a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance than they do at work at $300 but not 80 percent of the people. Some will make more; some will make less. Last week, I finally thought we had a breaking point because the Speaker of the House had Members of her own caucus calling her to work with the White House to pass at that time what was a $1.8 trillion package, but my understanding is, that wasn't good enough. Let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. By the way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority of Senators voted on this past week, on Wednesday--again, a majority but not the supermajority needed to get it passed. First is on the healthcare response, particularly on testing, and in Ohio, we need it right now. We need more money for testing. Republicans and Democrats alike know that is critical to stopping the spread of the disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going back to school, and going back to their local businesses to buy things. We need the Federal help on testing. We also need help to continue investing in developing treatments, and, of course, we need to invest in a vaccine to get a vaccine as quickly as possible. The targeted bill that came to the House this past week did just that--provided $16 billion for increased testing and contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. That is the kind of support we need right now Second, we agreed that Congress shouldn't continue to have this situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. We all want to help small businesses. That was in the targeted bill also. One way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this PPP program--the paycheck protection program--be in effect, and the targeted legislation did just that. It restarted the Paycheck Protection Program, which was included in the CARES Act but expired on August 8. So since August 8, we haven't had it. This was a smart program that provided low-interest loansto small businesses--loans that effectively became grants if they used them for certain purposes, like payroll to keep people employed but also their rent and their mortgages and utilities. At least 140,000 Ohio businesses in my State of Ohio--140,000 businesses--small businesses, have benefited from the PPP, saving what we think are at least 1.9 million jobs. Wow. We all know we need to extend that program. I think everybody agrees on that. I don't know a Senator in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't had the experience back home of a small business saying: I couldn't have stayed open without this. I have had that conversation dozens of times. A lot of these businesses were able to use this PPP loan to weather the storm. Some have seen their businesses now pick back up, and they are hiring again, and that is great. I recently had a virtual roundtable with manufacturers all over Northeast Ohio--the Cleveland area and the Akron area. They were hit hard by the early shutdowns. They put their businesses at risk, but thanks to the PPP loans they received, they were able to keep their employees on payroll and keep the doors open. Do you know what most of them did? They did something related to helping. Some made ventilators. Some made masks. Some made gowns. So they were able, during this slow time, to actually help to push back against the coronavirus. Now they are back in business. Now they are able to employ people, to hire people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. That is what we want. There are others, however, who desperately need continued PPP just to stay in business. I mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, the entertainment business, and the travel business. They have to have the PPP loans now--now--or they may close. Some have already closed because the program has been shut down since August 8 because we can't seem to get our act together to provide the help. That was in the targeted bill. By the way, it makes PPP more targeted and more focused because we don't want to waste money; we want to focus it on companies that really need it. That is bipartisan also. Let's do it. Beyond PPP, Congress should help invest in businesses to reopen safely and effectively. Small business owners I have spoken to during this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me that they are eager to reopen but they want to open in a safe manner. That is the sweet spot here. We don't want to close down the economy, but we do want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely. There are examples of how we can do that that this Congress should pass on a bipartisan basis. One is an expanded tax credit to incentivize new hiring through the work opportunity tax credit and the employee retention tax credit. We also have a new tax credit called the healthy workplace tax credit. It is very simple. It helps businesses pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer, and face coverings. These are credits against payroll tax that will help businesses rehire workers, reopen safely, and take these critical steps to let our economy recover. I will continue to push this in every coronavirus package. You know what, it has total bipartisan appeal because it is exactly what we ought to be doing--reopening, yes, but doing it safely. Let's give businesses the incentives to do that. It is expensive to purchase PPE, particularly when you have tight revenues, which a lot of businesses do right now. They want the help to be able to do it and do it right. Third, of course, we agree we need to invest in our schools and our State and local governments. With colleges and K-12 education trying to reopen around the country, it is critical that students don't lose any more progress in the classroom. We need to make sure schools have these resources to reopen and to stay open with adequate protective gear and social distancing policies and, again, plexiglass and other things to make it safe. The $105 billion that was in this legislation on Wednesday that was voted down--$105 billion for ensuring that schools are safe--is actually more than was in the original House-passed Heroes Act. So, let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the schools is a reason to vote no. State and local governments need support and more flexibility too. Ohio cities have been hit particularly hard because they rely on revenue from income taxes more than other cities around the country, and that income tax revenue has been lower than any of their projections. The targeted bill would have helped by extending the timeline in which CARES funding could be spent beyond the end of this year. I have heard this repeatedly from our Governor in Ohio, Mike DeWine, and also from local officials in Ohio: Don't make us spend all the money by yearend. We can spend it more effectively if you give us some flexibility on that. None of us should want to do that. We always complain about the Federal rule where you are telling an agency ``You have to spend the money by yearend; use it or lose it'' because it encourages them to go ahead and spend it, even though they don't need to, so they can have the same budget next year. Let's let them have the flexibility to spend the money as they need it. We all know now that this virus isn't going away in calendar year 2020. It is going to be around in 2021. Let's give them that flexibility. With this extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, including for public safety--police, fire, EMS. Fourth, we all agree we have to make sure Americans have adequate access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. Most of us in this Chamber have probably utilized telehealth services during this pandemic, and we know that they work. Telehealth has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, particularly for those fighting addiction, for those who have behavioral health issues, mental health issues, who can't currently receive in-person care to help in their recovery. I have worked with the Trump administration to expand telehealth and delivery options for opioid treatment, which, in some instances, has even allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. I love hearing that--that in this dark cloud, one silver lining is that telehealth has actually been successful and helped people, including mental health providers and drug treatment providers, to reach new people whom they couldn't reach previously. However, the reforms that we have in place now, based on the previous legislation I talked about, are only temporary. The bipartisan legislation we have introduced, along with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, is to make these telehealth options permanent. It is called the TREATS Act. That should be in any coronavirus package, and it would be. Finally, we need to chart a path forward on the issue of expanded unemployment insurance. Unemployment is down from the highest we saw in the spring, and it has been very encouraging to see how many new jobs have come back. It exceeded all expectations, everybody's--OMB's, CBO's, outside projections. But unemployment is still way too high. We are still at 8.9 percent in Ohio, and it is probably about 8 percent nationally. Think of this. We went from the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades just before this virus, more like 3.5 percent--record lows for Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, women--and now we have about 8 percent unemployment--more than double that. I said earlier that Congress allowed the original unemployment insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. When that happened, the Trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which had received funding from the CARES Act to temporarily add a $300-per-week Federal supplement called the Lost Wage Assistance Program. This program funded 6 weeks of expanded unemployment insurance and also encouraged States to provide their own match. What happened was that every State but two took the government up on that. They didn't add their match, but they did take the 300 bucks, and a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own were able to be helped through this Executive action. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where this program has been tapped out. Why? Because the $44 billion that was set aside in the Disaster Relief Fund is gone, leaving $25 billion to deal with natural disasters, which is what the Disaster Relief Fund is intended to do. And they need that money. We shouldn't use any more of that. So we are back to square one. People who have had unemployment insurance since the disaster began because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some businesses where they can't go back--a lot of those folks now are seeing just a State benefit or no benefit. The Republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by providing $300 per week through December 27--basically, through the end of the year. That was in the package that was just voted down. So Democrats, who say they want $600, voted down $300 because it wasn't enough. Well, somebody who is on unemployment is probably wondering: Why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that I can pay my rent, I can pay my car payment, I can make ends meet, even though I can't go back to my job? So if nothing else comes out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's at least provide more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund so that we can continue to respond at the executive branch level. If Congress can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way the administration was doing it for 6 weeks. We have proposed legislation to do just that, replenishing the Disaster Relief Fund so that this vital unemployment insurance supplement can continue that the administration had in place. If we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? Why can't we just pass PPP? Why can't we just pass something for testing? Why can't we just pass something to ensure that we are helping right now during this crisis? The bottom line is that there is still a lot for Congress to do to help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves in. Between bolstering our healthcare response, promoting a stronger and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to our schools, providing that flexibility I talked about earlier to governments, ensuring that our constituents can make ends meet as they deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we have a lot of opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic. I hope things will change soon. Maybe it will change on the election. Maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. I hope so. I hope that at least in the lameduck session of Congress, if we can't get our act together this week, we can figure out how to recapture that spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring, to negotiate in good faith, come to an agreement--and fast. Our constituents need it. Let's get it done. I yield back my time | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6468-2 | null | 1,553 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Coronavirus Mr. President, the economy is still struggling. As I said, we are not out of the woods yet, particularly in the areas of hospitality, travel, and entertainment. We are not out of the woods on the virus yet, either, with many States seeing a third wave right now. That is what I would describe is happening in Ohio, my home State. I have watched the numbers every single day this week. Not only are the number of cases increasing, but the hospitalizations went up this week. The number of people in ICU went up and fatalities went up. It is critical that this Congress provide additional relief to help the American people get through this healthcare crisis and economic fallout we have seen. We have done it before. Five times Republicans and Democrats on this floor and over in the House and working with the White House have passed coronavirus legislation--five times. In fact, most of the votes have been unanimous. It is unbelievable because here we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been unanimous. These laws have helped address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free fall that were caused by the virus and the government-imposed shutdowns. And for some of my colleagues who are concerned about the cost, I would just say again--government-imposed shutdowns. Many of these businesses in my home State that are struggling, you know, they were told to shut down, and they do need our help. They deserve our help. The same government that insisted that they not be in business ought to help them now to get back in business and stay in business. The biggest of these bills that this body and the House and the White House worked hard on and passed is called the CARES Act. A lot of people have heard about it. It is a piece of legislation that was very important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. It was passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to nothing. Unfortunately, since May of this year, when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming together for the good of all of us. For months, Democrats insisted that the only way forward was a bill called the $3.5 trillion Heroes Act, which passed the House of Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. It included things unrelated to COVID-19, and you can argue about those things. The SALT--the State and local tax deduction--is in there, as an example. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. It is a tax break, frankly, for wealthier individuals. Most of that tax break would go to people who are wealthy, and about half of it goes to people in the top 1 percent. There are immigration law changes in that legislation that are very controversial. Should we have a debate separately? Of course, but not in a COVID-19 bill. There are other policies in terms of election law and how States would handle their elections that had nothing to do with COVID-19. Also, it was $3.5 trillion. Now, we are facing this year not just the largest deficit in the history of our country but also a debt as a percentage of the economy, which is how most economists look at our fiscal problems--what is the debt as a percentage of the economy? It is as high as it has ever been, with the possible exception of World War II--a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly the economy grew, and we didn't have this big overhang of the entitlement spending that already has us in a structural debt. So $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. When it passed the House, it was the most expensive legislation ever to pass the House of Representatives by far. When it did pass, by the way, POLITICO and others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that they thought had no chance of becoming law. There is a good reason for that--$3.5 trillion and, again, the items there that did not relate to the coronavirus crisis. Since that time, Senate Republicans have provided some reasonable alternatives to this partisan proposal with targeted coronavirus response legislation--bills that help us directly address the healthcare and the economic crisis by investing in bipartisan approaches that we know work. The last legislation that was offered here on Wednesday was about $500 billion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, Democrats probably objected to some specific elements of it, like liability protection, but we should have had the opportunity to debate that and have a discussion. But on Wednesday, Democrats blocked it. Their position has been very clear, as I see it. They are going to stick with Speaker Pelosi no matter what, and I understand that from a negotiating position. They think she is the one negotiating with the White House; therefore, they are not going to get involved. I have talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have expressed the same frustration I am expressing right now. Gosh, why can't we get together between Republicans and Democrats and support something that is a compromise? But I think they have been told by their leadership: No discussion; no debate; we are going to stick with whatever the Speaker wants. Again, coming up to the election, it is my sense that what the Speaker wants is not to have a result. That is my sense. You have heard the President say very clearly he is willing to spend even more than the Speaker wants to spend. I am not suggesting that is the position that every Senate Republican has because many believe we spent a lot of money and we need to be very careful and be much more targeted given the fiscal situation we talked about earlier. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been very interested in getting a result and has, in good faith, been negotiating. But, again, we have not been able to make any progress because the notion is that we are going to stick with the Speaker's position no matter what. So instead of a compromise, we have zero relief. Instead of $3.5 trillion or $2.4 trillion--whatever the number is and whatever the Republican number is--we have zero relief that has been provided in the last several months. There has been sort of an all-or-none attitude--either we do it her way, or we get nothing. Three separate times on this floor, Democrats have even blocked proposals to temporarily extend the Federal unemployment insurance supplement that expired in August so that folks who were relying on that money could continue to make ends meet while we negotiated a long-term solution. This week, they blocked a reasonable approach on unemployment insurance, I believe. It was $300 per week Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment, and they blocked it, saying that wasn't enough and we need to stick with $600. So, again, it is either $600 or nothing. I will say that the $600 benefit is pretty generous. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that 80 percent of the people who are on unemployment insurance going forward--if we continued $600, 80 percent would be making more on unemployment insurance than they would be making at work. Talk to your businesses back home, and what they will tell you is that this has been a problem in getting people back to work when they can make more--sometimes significantly more--on unemployment insurance. But how about $300? How about a compromise? Some people will make more. In fact, a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance than they do at work at $300 but not 80 percent of the people. Some will make more; some will make less. Last week, I finally thought we had a breaking point because the Speaker of the House had Members of her own caucus calling her to work with the White House to pass at that time what was a $1.8 trillion package, but my understanding is, that wasn't good enough. Let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. By the way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority of Senators voted on this past week, on Wednesday--again, a majority but not the supermajority needed to get it passed. First is on the healthcare response, particularly on testing, and in Ohio, we need it right now. We need more money for testing. Republicans and Democrats alike know that is critical to stopping the spread of the disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going back to school, and going back to their local businesses to buy things. We need the Federal help on testing. We also need help to continue investing in developing treatments, and, of course, we need to invest in a vaccine to get a vaccine as quickly as possible. The targeted bill that came to the House this past week did just that--provided $16 billion for increased testing and contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. That is the kind of support we need right now Second, we agreed that Congress shouldn't continue to have this situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. We all want to help small businesses. That was in the targeted bill also. One way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this PPP program--the paycheck protection program--be in effect, and the targeted legislation did just that. It restarted the Paycheck Protection Program, which was included in the CARES Act but expired on August 8. So since August 8, we haven't had it. This was a smart program that provided low-interest loansto small businesses--loans that effectively became grants if they used them for certain purposes, like payroll to keep people employed but also their rent and their mortgages and utilities. At least 140,000 Ohio businesses in my State of Ohio--140,000 businesses--small businesses, have benefited from the PPP, saving what we think are at least 1.9 million jobs. Wow. We all know we need to extend that program. I think everybody agrees on that. I don't know a Senator in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't had the experience back home of a small business saying: I couldn't have stayed open without this. I have had that conversation dozens of times. A lot of these businesses were able to use this PPP loan to weather the storm. Some have seen their businesses now pick back up, and they are hiring again, and that is great. I recently had a virtual roundtable with manufacturers all over Northeast Ohio--the Cleveland area and the Akron area. They were hit hard by the early shutdowns. They put their businesses at risk, but thanks to the PPP loans they received, they were able to keep their employees on payroll and keep the doors open. Do you know what most of them did? They did something related to helping. Some made ventilators. Some made masks. Some made gowns. So they were able, during this slow time, to actually help to push back against the coronavirus. Now they are back in business. Now they are able to employ people, to hire people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. That is what we want. There are others, however, who desperately need continued PPP just to stay in business. I mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, the entertainment business, and the travel business. They have to have the PPP loans now--now--or they may close. Some have already closed because the program has been shut down since August 8 because we can't seem to get our act together to provide the help. That was in the targeted bill. By the way, it makes PPP more targeted and more focused because we don't want to waste money; we want to focus it on companies that really need it. That is bipartisan also. Let's do it. Beyond PPP, Congress should help invest in businesses to reopen safely and effectively. Small business owners I have spoken to during this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me that they are eager to reopen but they want to open in a safe manner. That is the sweet spot here. We don't want to close down the economy, but we do want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely. There are examples of how we can do that that this Congress should pass on a bipartisan basis. One is an expanded tax credit to incentivize new hiring through the work opportunity tax credit and the employee retention tax credit. We also have a new tax credit called the healthy workplace tax credit. It is very simple. It helps businesses pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer, and face coverings. These are credits against payroll tax that will help businesses rehire workers, reopen safely, and take these critical steps to let our economy recover. I will continue to push this in every coronavirus package. You know what, it has total bipartisan appeal because it is exactly what we ought to be doing--reopening, yes, but doing it safely. Let's give businesses the incentives to do that. It is expensive to purchase PPE, particularly when you have tight revenues, which a lot of businesses do right now. They want the help to be able to do it and do it right. Third, of course, we agree we need to invest in our schools and our State and local governments. With colleges and K-12 education trying to reopen around the country, it is critical that students don't lose any more progress in the classroom. We need to make sure schools have these resources to reopen and to stay open with adequate protective gear and social distancing policies and, again, plexiglass and other things to make it safe. The $105 billion that was in this legislation on Wednesday that was voted down--$105 billion for ensuring that schools are safe--is actually more than was in the original House-passed Heroes Act. So, let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the schools is a reason to vote no. State and local governments need support and more flexibility too. Ohio cities have been hit particularly hard because they rely on revenue from income taxes more than other cities around the country, and that income tax revenue has been lower than any of their projections. The targeted bill would have helped by extending the timeline in which CARES funding could be spent beyond the end of this year. I have heard this repeatedly from our Governor in Ohio, Mike DeWine, and also from local officials in Ohio: Don't make us spend all the money by yearend. We can spend it more effectively if you give us some flexibility on that. None of us should want to do that. We always complain about the Federal rule where you are telling an agency ``You have to spend the money by yearend; use it or lose it'' because it encourages them to go ahead and spend it, even though they don't need to, so they can have the same budget next year. Let's let them have the flexibility to spend the money as they need it. We all know now that this virus isn't going away in calendar year 2020. It is going to be around in 2021. Let's give them that flexibility. With this extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, including for public safety--police, fire, EMS. Fourth, we all agree we have to make sure Americans have adequate access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. Most of us in this Chamber have probably utilized telehealth services during this pandemic, and we know that they work. Telehealth has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, particularly for those fighting addiction, for those who have behavioral health issues, mental health issues, who can't currently receive in-person care to help in their recovery. I have worked with the Trump administration to expand telehealth and delivery options for opioid treatment, which, in some instances, has even allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. I love hearing that--that in this dark cloud, one silver lining is that telehealth has actually been successful and helped people, including mental health providers and drug treatment providers, to reach new people whom they couldn't reach previously. However, the reforms that we have in place now, based on the previous legislation I talked about, are only temporary. The bipartisan legislation we have introduced, along with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, is to make these telehealth options permanent. It is called the TREATS Act. That should be in any coronavirus package, and it would be. Finally, we need to chart a path forward on the issue of expanded unemployment insurance. Unemployment is down from the highest we saw in the spring, and it has been very encouraging to see how many new jobs have come back. It exceeded all expectations, everybody's--OMB's, CBO's, outside projections. But unemployment is still way too high. We are still at 8.9 percent in Ohio, and it is probably about 8 percent nationally. Think of this. We went from the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades just before this virus, more like 3.5 percent--record lows for Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, women--and now we have about 8 percent unemployment--more than double that. I said earlier that Congress allowed the original unemployment insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. When that happened, the Trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which had received funding from the CARES Act to temporarily add a $300-per-week Federal supplement called the Lost Wage Assistance Program. This program funded 6 weeks of expanded unemployment insurance and also encouraged States to provide their own match. What happened was that every State but two took the government up on that. They didn't add their match, but they did take the 300 bucks, and a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own were able to be helped through this Executive action. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where this program has been tapped out. Why? Because the $44 billion that was set aside in the Disaster Relief Fund is gone, leaving $25 billion to deal with natural disasters, which is what the Disaster Relief Fund is intended to do. And they need that money. We shouldn't use any more of that. So we are back to square one. People who have had unemployment insurance since the disaster began because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some businesses where they can't go back--a lot of those folks now are seeing just a State benefit or no benefit. The Republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by providing $300 per week through December 27--basically, through the end of the year. That was in the package that was just voted down. So Democrats, who say they want $600, voted down $300 because it wasn't enough. Well, somebody who is on unemployment is probably wondering: Why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that I can pay my rent, I can pay my car payment, I can make ends meet, even though I can't go back to my job? So if nothing else comes out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's at least provide more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund so that we can continue to respond at the executive branch level. If Congress can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way the administration was doing it for 6 weeks. We have proposed legislation to do just that, replenishing the Disaster Relief Fund so that this vital unemployment insurance supplement can continue that the administration had in place. If we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? Why can't we just pass PPP? Why can't we just pass something for testing? Why can't we just pass something to ensure that we are helping right now during this crisis? The bottom line is that there is still a lot for Congress to do to help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves in. Between bolstering our healthcare response, promoting a stronger and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to our schools, providing that flexibility I talked about earlier to governments, ensuring that our constituents can make ends meet as they deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we have a lot of opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic. I hope things will change soon. Maybe it will change on the election. Maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. I hope so. I hope that at least in the lameduck session of Congress, if we can't get our act together this week, we can figure out how to recapture that spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring, to negotiate in good faith, come to an agreement--and fast. Our constituents need it. Let's get it done. I yield back my time | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6468-2 | null | 1,554 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Coronavirus Mr. President, the economy is still struggling. As I said, we are not out of the woods yet, particularly in the areas of hospitality, travel, and entertainment. We are not out of the woods on the virus yet, either, with many States seeing a third wave right now. That is what I would describe is happening in Ohio, my home State. I have watched the numbers every single day this week. Not only are the number of cases increasing, but the hospitalizations went up this week. The number of people in ICU went up and fatalities went up. It is critical that this Congress provide additional relief to help the American people get through this healthcare crisis and economic fallout we have seen. We have done it before. Five times Republicans and Democrats on this floor and over in the House and working with the White House have passed coronavirus legislation--five times. In fact, most of the votes have been unanimous. It is unbelievable because here we are in this partisan atmosphere, but most of the votes have been unanimous. These laws have helped address both the healthcare crisis and the economic free fall that were caused by the virus and the government-imposed shutdowns. And for some of my colleagues who are concerned about the cost, I would just say again--government-imposed shutdowns. Many of these businesses in my home State that are struggling, you know, they were told to shut down, and they do need our help. They deserve our help. The same government that insisted that they not be in business ought to help them now to get back in business and stay in business. The biggest of these bills that this body and the House and the White House worked hard on and passed is called the CARES Act. A lot of people have heard about it. It is a piece of legislation that was very important at the time but needs to be extended, in essence, now. It was passed by a vote in this Chamber of 96 to nothing. Unfortunately, since May of this year, when the last of these bipartisan bills was enacted, partisanship has prevailed over good policy, and Washington has been paralyzed, unable to repeat the coming together for the good of all of us. For months, Democrats insisted that the only way forward was a bill called the $3.5 trillion Heroes Act, which passed the House of Representatives 4 months ago along partisan lines. It included things unrelated to COVID-19, and you can argue about those things. The SALT--the State and local tax deduction--is in there, as an example. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. It is a tax break, frankly, for wealthier individuals. Most of that tax break would go to people who are wealthy, and about half of it goes to people in the top 1 percent. There are immigration law changes in that legislation that are very controversial. Should we have a debate separately? Of course, but not in a COVID-19 bill. There are other policies in terms of election law and how States would handle their elections that had nothing to do with COVID-19. Also, it was $3.5 trillion. Now, we are facing this year not just the largest deficit in the history of our country but also a debt as a percentage of the economy, which is how most economists look at our fiscal problems--what is the debt as a percentage of the economy? It is as high as it has ever been, with the possible exception of World War II--a year when we had huge military expenditures, but pretty quickly the economy grew, and we didn't have this big overhang of the entitlement spending that already has us in a structural debt. So $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. When it passed the House, it was the most expensive legislation ever to pass the House of Representatives by far. When it did pass, by the way, POLITICO and others in the media accurately called it a messaging bill that they thought had no chance of becoming law. There is a good reason for that--$3.5 trillion and, again, the items there that did not relate to the coronavirus crisis. Since that time, Senate Republicans have provided some reasonable alternatives to this partisan proposal with targeted coronavirus response legislation--bills that help us directly address the healthcare and the economic crisis by investing in bipartisan approaches that we know work. The last legislation that was offered here on Wednesday was about $500 billion. That used to be a lot of money. Again, Democrats probably objected to some specific elements of it, like liability protection, but we should have had the opportunity to debate that and have a discussion. But on Wednesday, Democrats blocked it. Their position has been very clear, as I see it. They are going to stick with Speaker Pelosi no matter what, and I understand that from a negotiating position. They think she is the one negotiating with the White House; therefore, they are not going to get involved. I have talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have expressed the same frustration I am expressing right now. Gosh, why can't we get together between Republicans and Democrats and support something that is a compromise? But I think they have been told by their leadership: No discussion; no debate; we are going to stick with whatever the Speaker wants. Again, coming up to the election, it is my sense that what the Speaker wants is not to have a result. That is my sense. You have heard the President say very clearly he is willing to spend even more than the Speaker wants to spend. I am not suggesting that is the position that every Senate Republican has because many believe we spent a lot of money and we need to be very careful and be much more targeted given the fiscal situation we talked about earlier. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, has been very interested in getting a result and has, in good faith, been negotiating. But, again, we have not been able to make any progress because the notion is that we are going to stick with the Speaker's position no matter what. So instead of a compromise, we have zero relief. Instead of $3.5 trillion or $2.4 trillion--whatever the number is and whatever the Republican number is--we have zero relief that has been provided in the last several months. There has been sort of an all-or-none attitude--either we do it her way, or we get nothing. Three separate times on this floor, Democrats have even blocked proposals to temporarily extend the Federal unemployment insurance supplement that expired in August so that folks who were relying on that money could continue to make ends meet while we negotiated a long-term solution. This week, they blocked a reasonable approach on unemployment insurance, I believe. It was $300 per week Federal supplement on top of the State unemployment, and they blocked it, saying that wasn't enough and we need to stick with $600. So, again, it is either $600 or nothing. I will say that the $600 benefit is pretty generous. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that 80 percent of the people who are on unemployment insurance going forward--if we continued $600, 80 percent would be making more on unemployment insurance than they would be making at work. Talk to your businesses back home, and what they will tell you is that this has been a problem in getting people back to work when they can make more--sometimes significantly more--on unemployment insurance. But how about $300? How about a compromise? Some people will make more. In fact, a lot of people will make more on unemployment insurance than they do at work at $300 but not 80 percent of the people. Some will make more; some will make less. Last week, I finally thought we had a breaking point because the Speaker of the House had Members of her own caucus calling her to work with the White House to pass at that time what was a $1.8 trillion package, but my understanding is, that wasn't good enough. Let's get back to the commonsense ideas we can all agree on. By the way, many of these are in this targeted legislation that the majority of Senators voted on this past week, on Wednesday--again, a majority but not the supermajority needed to get it passed. First is on the healthcare response, particularly on testing, and in Ohio, we need it right now. We need more money for testing. Republicans and Democrats alike know that is critical to stopping the spread of the disease and getting people more comfortable going back to work, going back to school, and going back to their local businesses to buy things. We need the Federal help on testing. We also need help to continue investing in developing treatments, and, of course, we need to invest in a vaccine to get a vaccine as quickly as possible. The targeted bill that came to the House this past week did just that--provided $16 billion for increased testing and contact tracing and an additional $31 billion for vaccine development. That is the kind of support we need right now Second, we agreed that Congress shouldn't continue to have this situation where small businesses are being forced to close their doors. We all want to help small businesses. That was in the targeted bill also. One way we have agreed across the aisle is to have this PPP program--the paycheck protection program--be in effect, and the targeted legislation did just that. It restarted the Paycheck Protection Program, which was included in the CARES Act but expired on August 8. So since August 8, we haven't had it. This was a smart program that provided low-interest loansto small businesses--loans that effectively became grants if they used them for certain purposes, like payroll to keep people employed but also their rent and their mortgages and utilities. At least 140,000 Ohio businesses in my State of Ohio--140,000 businesses--small businesses, have benefited from the PPP, saving what we think are at least 1.9 million jobs. Wow. We all know we need to extend that program. I think everybody agrees on that. I don't know a Senator in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, who hasn't had the experience back home of a small business saying: I couldn't have stayed open without this. I have had that conversation dozens of times. A lot of these businesses were able to use this PPP loan to weather the storm. Some have seen their businesses now pick back up, and they are hiring again, and that is great. I recently had a virtual roundtable with manufacturers all over Northeast Ohio--the Cleveland area and the Akron area. They were hit hard by the early shutdowns. They put their businesses at risk, but thanks to the PPP loans they received, they were able to keep their employees on payroll and keep the doors open. Do you know what most of them did? They did something related to helping. Some made ventilators. Some made masks. Some made gowns. So they were able, during this slow time, to actually help to push back against the coronavirus. Now they are back in business. Now they are able to employ people, to hire people, and to pay taxes and provide revenue to the government. That is what we want. There are others, however, who desperately need continued PPP just to stay in business. I mentioned the hospitality industry earlier, the entertainment business, and the travel business. They have to have the PPP loans now--now--or they may close. Some have already closed because the program has been shut down since August 8 because we can't seem to get our act together to provide the help. That was in the targeted bill. By the way, it makes PPP more targeted and more focused because we don't want to waste money; we want to focus it on companies that really need it. That is bipartisan also. Let's do it. Beyond PPP, Congress should help invest in businesses to reopen safely and effectively. Small business owners I have spoken to during this pandemic and especially in recent weeks have told me that they are eager to reopen but they want to open in a safe manner. That is the sweet spot here. We don't want to close down the economy, but we do want the economy to be reopened and stay open safely. There are examples of how we can do that that this Congress should pass on a bipartisan basis. One is an expanded tax credit to incentivize new hiring through the work opportunity tax credit and the employee retention tax credit. We also have a new tax credit called the healthy workplace tax credit. It is very simple. It helps businesses pay for protective equipment like plexiglass, hand sanitizer, and face coverings. These are credits against payroll tax that will help businesses rehire workers, reopen safely, and take these critical steps to let our economy recover. I will continue to push this in every coronavirus package. You know what, it has total bipartisan appeal because it is exactly what we ought to be doing--reopening, yes, but doing it safely. Let's give businesses the incentives to do that. It is expensive to purchase PPE, particularly when you have tight revenues, which a lot of businesses do right now. They want the help to be able to do it and do it right. Third, of course, we agree we need to invest in our schools and our State and local governments. With colleges and K-12 education trying to reopen around the country, it is critical that students don't lose any more progress in the classroom. We need to make sure schools have these resources to reopen and to stay open with adequate protective gear and social distancing policies and, again, plexiglass and other things to make it safe. The $105 billion that was in this legislation on Wednesday that was voted down--$105 billion for ensuring that schools are safe--is actually more than was in the original House-passed Heroes Act. So, let's find a compromise here, but you can't say that helping the schools is a reason to vote no. State and local governments need support and more flexibility too. Ohio cities have been hit particularly hard because they rely on revenue from income taxes more than other cities around the country, and that income tax revenue has been lower than any of their projections. The targeted bill would have helped by extending the timeline in which CARES funding could be spent beyond the end of this year. I have heard this repeatedly from our Governor in Ohio, Mike DeWine, and also from local officials in Ohio: Don't make us spend all the money by yearend. We can spend it more effectively if you give us some flexibility on that. None of us should want to do that. We always complain about the Federal rule where you are telling an agency ``You have to spend the money by yearend; use it or lose it'' because it encourages them to go ahead and spend it, even though they don't need to, so they can have the same budget next year. Let's let them have the flexibility to spend the money as they need it. We all know now that this virus isn't going away in calendar year 2020. It is going to be around in 2021. Let's give them that flexibility. With this extended timeline, we should also provide flexibility so they can be certain that they can spend the money where they need it, including for public safety--police, fire, EMS. Fourth, we all agree we have to make sure Americans have adequate access to telehealth and telehealth medicine. Most of us in this Chamber have probably utilized telehealth services during this pandemic, and we know that they work. Telehealth has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, particularly for those fighting addiction, for those who have behavioral health issues, mental health issues, who can't currently receive in-person care to help in their recovery. I have worked with the Trump administration to expand telehealth and delivery options for opioid treatment, which, in some instances, has even allowed addiction specialists to reach new patients. I love hearing that--that in this dark cloud, one silver lining is that telehealth has actually been successful and helped people, including mental health providers and drug treatment providers, to reach new people whom they couldn't reach previously. However, the reforms that we have in place now, based on the previous legislation I talked about, are only temporary. The bipartisan legislation we have introduced, along with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, is to make these telehealth options permanent. It is called the TREATS Act. That should be in any coronavirus package, and it would be. Finally, we need to chart a path forward on the issue of expanded unemployment insurance. Unemployment is down from the highest we saw in the spring, and it has been very encouraging to see how many new jobs have come back. It exceeded all expectations, everybody's--OMB's, CBO's, outside projections. But unemployment is still way too high. We are still at 8.9 percent in Ohio, and it is probably about 8 percent nationally. Think of this. We went from the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades just before this virus, more like 3.5 percent--record lows for Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, women--and now we have about 8 percent unemployment--more than double that. I said earlier that Congress allowed the original unemployment insurance supplement to expire without a replacement. When that happened, the Trump administration stepped in and used $44 billion from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which had received funding from the CARES Act to temporarily add a $300-per-week Federal supplement called the Lost Wage Assistance Program. This program funded 6 weeks of expanded unemployment insurance and also encouraged States to provide their own match. What happened was that every State but two took the government up on that. They didn't add their match, but they did take the 300 bucks, and a lot of people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own were able to be helped through this Executive action. Unfortunately, we are now at a point where this program has been tapped out. Why? Because the $44 billion that was set aside in the Disaster Relief Fund is gone, leaving $25 billion to deal with natural disasters, which is what the Disaster Relief Fund is intended to do. And they need that money. We shouldn't use any more of that. So we are back to square one. People who have had unemployment insurance since the disaster began because they might work in hospitality, entertainment, travel, some businesses where they can't go back--a lot of those folks now are seeing just a State benefit or no benefit. The Republican proposal actually had a long-term solution by providing $300 per week through December 27--basically, through the end of the year. That was in the package that was just voted down. So Democrats, who say they want $600, voted down $300 because it wasn't enough. Well, somebody who is on unemployment is probably wondering: Why not just compromise and at least get me the $300 so that I can pay my rent, I can pay my car payment, I can make ends meet, even though I can't go back to my job? So if nothing else comes out of these coronavirus negotiations, let's at least provide more funding for the Disaster Relief Fund so that we can continue to respond at the executive branch level. If Congress can't get its act together, at least continue the $300 through the way the administration was doing it for 6 weeks. We have proposed legislation to do just that, replenishing the Disaster Relief Fund so that this vital unemployment insurance supplement can continue that the administration had in place. If we can't pass a bigger package, why can't we just pass that? Why can't we just pass PPP? Why can't we just pass something for testing? Why can't we just pass something to ensure that we are helping right now during this crisis? The bottom line is that there is still a lot for Congress to do to help lead the country through this coronavirus crisis we find ourselves in. Between bolstering our healthcare response, promoting a stronger and more equitable economic recovery, getting the necessary funding to our schools, providing that flexibility I talked about earlier to governments, ensuring that our constituents can make ends meet as they deal with sudden unemployment and other challenges, we have a lot of opportunities to help our country weather the storm of this pandemic. I hope things will change soon. Maybe it will change on the election. Maybe after the election there will be a different attitude. I hope so. I hope that at least in the lameduck session of Congress, if we can't get our act together this week, we can figure out how to recapture that spirit of bipartisanship we saw this spring, to negotiate in good faith, come to an agreement--and fast. Our constituents need it. Let's get it done. I yield back my time | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6468-2 | null | 1,555 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Coronavirus Mr. President, while the Senate continues to work through this important process of the next Supreme Court nominee, I am also here on the floor today to remind all of us that we are still in the middle of an unprecedented healthcare and economic crisis caused by this ongoing coronavirus pandemic. I am here to express my frustration that the sense of urgency and compromise that we had for the first several months of this coronavirus seem to have disappeared as we have approached the election. The Democratic leader today raised the seriousness of the pandemic. Something said on the other side of the aisle was that we shouldn't even be taking up a Supreme Court nominee because of the seriousness of the pandemic and the need to focus on that. I don't understand why then, on Wednesday, the same Democratic leader and his colleagues blocked even taking action on the coronavirus or even having a debate on whether to take action because, once again, they blocked a legislative initiative to have a discussion about this issue. By the way, it is a discussion about an issue that affects every single one of our States. Again, we are not out of the woods, so we should be not just discussing it but passing legislation on it. The legislation that we have introduced might not be legislation that every Democrat can support. In fact, I think there were some things that were in our bill that some Democrats might not love. But for the most part, there were bipartisan proposals that everybody can support, and all we asked for was to be able to get on the bill to have a debate. Yet we had to have 60 votes to be able to do that. That is the supermajority that is required around here, and those 60 votes could not be found, even though last Wednesday the $500 billion package got a majority vote. There was a majority vote for this package but not the supermajority needed. It was blocked by the other side. If we had gotten on the legislation and had the debate about what the PPP program ought to look like, how much money should be used for testing, what we should do with regard to liability protections, Democrats would have had the opportunity to put their own ideas forward, to offer their own amendments, and I would have strongly supported them in that process. Also, some of us had some additional amendments we would like to have added and changes we would like to have seen. But, ultimately, if Democrats or Republicans found that they didn't like the final product that came out of that discussion, that debate, they would have had another chance because there would have been another 60-vote hurdle to get over before passage of the legislation. I know this is sounding like a process issue, but it really is not. It is about doing our jobs as Senators. Both Republicans and Democrats care about this issue, yet we just can't seem to figure out how to get it unfrozen here and to be able to move forward. Having blocked, again, even having a debate on moving forward was very discouraging to me. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6468 | null | 1,556 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, when I was in law school, which wasn't really that long ago, the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice was a chance for the American people to learn about our system of checks and balances, our commitment to the rule of law, and, in particular, the independence of judges. And whenever the Senate confirmed a Justice with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, as it did almost every time, it reaffirmed that independence and reassured the American people that our courts were protected from political influence and that they stood apart from the partisanship of the other two branches of government. As we meet here tonight, after 20 years of descending into intensifying partisanship in the confirmation of judges, the Senate is now about to drag the Supreme Court down to its own decadent level by turning it into just another politicized body that is distrusted, for good reason, by the people it is meant to serve. It is common these days to observe that our institutions are failing. I have said it myself. But institutions don't fail on their own. They can't destroy themselves. It takes people to destroy them. It particularly takes leaders who have no inclusive, long-range vision for our country or our democracy; leaders who can't or won't think beyond narrow, short-term interests; and leaders, I am sorry to say, like Leader McConnell. He may imagine, as he claims, that he is simply restoring the judicial calendar to a prefilibuster era. That is what he tells his colleagues here when he recounts the story. The majority leader, more than any other actor, has transformed what used to be the overwhelming bipartisan confirmation of a qualified nominee and a bipartisan ratification of the independence of the judiciary into an entirely partisan exercise that has destroyed the Senate's constitutional responsibility to advise and consent and is now at risk of destroying the credibility of the Supreme Court and the lower courts as well. This may not matter much, I suppose, to the Senators on this floor. It matters to the American people who have not consented to the destruction of their constitutional right to an independent judiciary free from the partisan insanity of elected politicians. In this confirmation proceeding, the majority renounced its duty to advise and consent by giving their consent before the President ever chose the nominee. I don't believe that has ever happened in the history of America. Ours is a Senate where words have lost their meaning. Party advantage dictates every action. Shameless hypocrisy is the stuff of proud triumph. Deliberation is no longer necessary because conclusions are all foregone, and a decision like that affirming Judge Barrett to a lifetime appointment to the most powerful Court in the Nation is anything you have the power to cram down the throats of your political opponents. The truth is, this confirmation process has never been a debate about what the Senate should do, what the Senate ought to do, and what the right thing to do for this Senate is. It has always been a demonstration of what the majority can get away with and of how they can exercise their power in order to entrench their power. I have no expectation that my words are going to change the result tomorrow. My hope is that we can mark this as the moment that the American people said ``Enough'' and began to reclaim their exercise in self-government from those who have worked relentlessly to deprive them of it. To do that, we have to be very clear about what this moment means and what it calls on each of us to do in the days, months, and years ahead. The truth is, this confirmation is the latest victory for an unpatriotic project that traces back to the earliest days of our country. Since our founding, there have always been factions working toward an insidious purpose: to so degrade and discredit our national exercise in self-government that when the American people finally throw up their hands in disgust, these factions can distort it into an instrument for their interests instead of the public interest. Today, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, represents one such faction, joined by the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, President Trump, and the legion of deep-pocketed donors and PACs assembled behind them. Because factions like this one have a tough time winning broad support from the American people for their agenda, they seek other lessdemocratic means to secure their power--gerrymandering, voter suppression, and, in this case, cramming a nominee onto the Supreme Court during the fleeting days of a failing, unpopular administration. Over the years, earlier versions of these factions have obscured their project with terms like ``States' rights,'' ``originalism,'' ``freedom,'' and with dubious claims like ``separate but equal,'' essentially turning American words against the American people. We saw it in the 1890s, when the Supreme Court invoked freedom to strike down laws that would have let workers unionize, establish a minimum wage, prohibit child labor, and create a progressive income tax. We saw it most infamously in Plessy v. Ferguson, when the same Court hid behind equality to justify segregation. We saw it in 1905, when the Supreme Court perverted the 14th Amendment, the amendment meant to guarantee the protection of the law for those most vulnerable in our society, to invent a ``liberty to contract'' so that bakeries could freely force people to work more than 60 hours a week. Just a few years after that ruling, 145 workers were burned alive at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory after their employer took the liberty of locking them inside. We saw it in the 1930s, when the Supreme Court rewrote the commerce clause in a failed attempt to eviscerate the New Deal, FDR's historic effort to build an economy that lifted everyone up, not just those at the very top. We see it in our time, in Citizens United, Shelby, and other rulings when the Supreme Court has asserted the right of billionaires and other privileged interests to corrupt our democracy, while denying the American people's right to defend it. And we see it in Judge Barrett's adherence to originalism, the spurious legal doctrine that has been knocking around in the Federalist Society and other circles of far-right lawyers since the 1970s. By claiming to stick to an 18th century understanding of the Constitution, originalism deceptively implicates Madison, Hamilton, and the rest of the Framers in any number of legal arguments, as if they intended the Second Amendment to permit bump stocks or the interstate commerce clause to forbid environmental protections while foreclosing on legislative innovation here and now in the present because the men who gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, who could not recognize that slavery should be outlawed or that women should have the right to vote, could also not foresee the need to prohibit child labor or require food labels to tell the truth. It is no surprise to me that the originalists and the tea party-right have embraced shared hagiographies. They are stealing the authority of the Founders in an effort to conceal their reactionary project. And while the specific aims of these factions have changed over time, their project has remained the same: to protect their power and call it freedom--freedom to enslave, freedom to segregate, freedom to pay workers less than they can live on, to work them to death, to fire them because of what they believe or whom they love, to redline our neighborhoods, poison our skies, defund our schools, and buy our elections. At all times, though, their goal has been to preserve, as Professor Jefferson Cowie puts it, the freedom to dominate others--not only to cement their power but to demolish the economic opportunity and civil rights that would otherwise empower their fellow Americans. Why would they do this? Because, in truth, the original promise of America--that it would be a society in which all people would be created equal and endowed with equal rights--terrifies them. The consequences for our country and for its citizens who do not benefit from this project are plain. It batters our political and economic equity, security, and opportunity. It degrades our democracy. It robs from future American generations by hoarding wealth today. This confirmation is their latest ill-gotten victory. Judge Barrett's nomination comes to this floor on a path cleared by the same deep-pocketed donors and corporations that have worked for decades to protect their power, regardless of the cost to the American people and their security, well-being, and civil rights. And based on everything I have learned about Judge Barrett's record, I fear she will become one more predictable vote for that agenda. In her tenure on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett sided with corporations in 85 percent of her business-related cases. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by race. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by age. She sided with debt collectors over consumers. She voted to block compensation for victims of a compensation fund. She voted against workers' fight for overtime. The pattern is clear: When consumers and workers sought the protection of the law or the government, she stood in the way. I worry that, once confirmed, she will continue that pattern with rulings to destroy hard-won protections for the American people--rulings to cripple agencies to keep our air and water clean, our food and drugs safe, and our families protected from scammers trying to rip them off; rulings to make it harder for Americans to choose how and when to raise a family or marry the person they love; rulings to make it easier for felons to buy guns and harder for us to hold gunmakers accountable when their weapons kill and maim our children in their schools and on our streets; rulings to block any effort by the American people to fight the voter suppression, to fight the dark money, and the partisan gerrymandering corrupting our democracy. Finally, I worry that she will cast the deciding vote to destroy the Affordable Care Act and strip healthcare from millions of people in Colorado and across the country for whom this is literally a matter of life and death. Justice Barrett's confirmation will cement a 6-to-3 majority on the Court that will allow the powerful to do what they want, while standing against the American people's efforts to protect one another, to support one another, and to invest in each other through our democracy. That is where we are. That is where we are. As dispiriting as this moment may be, we have been here before as a country. We are not the first generation of Americans to face the Senate or a Supreme Court that will stand with the powerful against the people. We are not the first citizens to run into a wall of obstruction as we work to make this country more democratic, more fair, and more free. We have to learn from the examples of those who came before us, those who answered slavery with emancipation and reconstruction; a Gilded Age with a Progressive Era; a Great Depression with a New Deal; Jim Crow with civil rights. As it was for them, so it is for us to meet the challenges of our time. And unlike the forces that have brought us to this low point, we have a much harder job because we have a far greater purpose. Theirs has been to grind our democracy into rubble; ours is to build a strong foundation for the American people and the next generation. The American people need us to begin building that foundation now. They have already paid enough for a government that fails to fight on their behalf--50 years, when 90 percent of families haven't had a pay raise; the worst income inequality since 1928; people working harder and harder than ever before but whose families are sliding farther away from the middle class, and now--and now--a national government paralyzed by ineptitude, incompetence, indifference, and basic scientific ignorance that has led to thousands of needless deaths of our fellow citizens and pushed millions of families and businesses over the brink. We must end this era and replace it with more honorable commitment to competent and imaginative self-government responsive to the American people's needs. Their wishes are more than fair. They want a wage they can live on, a healthcare system that no longer routinely reduces families to tears, with options they can actually afford and count on when they need them, schools that create possibility and opportunity and colleges that leave students with more than just crippling debt; the chance to care for a new child or a sick family member without having to quit a job or lose their pay, safe communities where parents no longer have toworry about their kids being shot, criminal justice and law enforcement and immigration systems that don't treat people differently because of the color of their skin, roads and bridges and airports that weren't built by their grandparents, broadband that works at home so kids don't have to go to school in Walmart parking lots in this country tonight, an urgent and durable answer for climate change so the next generation doesn't inherit a planet hurtling toward incineration. None of this is unreasonable; all of it is achievable; and we can start with the coming elections. But that is only the beginning of the fight. I can assure you that the same faction that was willing to enlist every parliamentary gimmick or deploy any oratorical sleight of hand or commit any act of institutional arson in service of someone like Donald Trump will continue to do whatever they can get away with in this body. They are not going to stop. They have spent decades and billions in dark money, exercising their power to entrench their power. They will not abandon this project in a single election. And we are going to have to overcome that, just as we are going to have to overcome the Supreme Court. It won't be easy. It won't be easy, but anyone who studied the history of our country, our democracy, knows how hard it is to make progress. It is never easy. Time and again, Americans have breached the ramparts of undemocratic power. It happened in 1848 in Seneca Falls, when 100 people--mostly women--signed the Declaration of Sentiments. It happened outside the Stonewall Inn in 1969, when thousands stood up to police abuse of the city's LGBT citizens. It happened when Cesar Chavez lifted the plight of America's farmworkers and Corky Gonzalez gave voice to the history and stifled pride of a people. It happened in 1965, when 2,500 citizens crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to the Alabama capital city of Montgomery. Each time a few brave citizens have advanced upon the work of despotism, their fellow Americans joining them, because they, too, longed for a better country. Perhaps this summer we crossed this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge, when fatigued by still unending months of disease, ashamed by Donald Trump's embrace of White supremacy and his failing efforts to make the United States look like a police state, forced to reckon again with the brutal and systemic racism of our justice and law enforcement system, Americans decided they could no longer stand a country on such terrible terms, or perhaps this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge is still before us, unknown but there for those who will do their part to bend the moral arc of the universe. But we must cross this bridge I hope sooner rather than later. Like our forebearers, we will cross it only by pursuing ideas so compelling that Americans will fight for them to make a real difference in their lives. As always, our march won't begin in the Chamber of the Senate. But when Dr. King, John Lewis, and the many who joined them, crossed their generation's bridge, the Senate eventually followed and broke the segregationist stranglehold on this body. Rather than turn his back on what was obviously right, the Republican leader, joined his Democratic counterpart, Mike Mansfield, to lock arms in support of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The segregationist filibuster withered in the face of noble, bipartisan majorities. When our time comes once again in the Senate to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we will have to muster the discipline to stand behind an agenda that will endure, one sturdy enough for a project of our own. And if we do our job, my hope is that 50 years from now, our kids and grandkids will look back with gratitude that we built on this foundation a house that they and their children love to live in--an America that is more democratic, more fair, and more free I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6483-2 | null | 1,557 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, when I was in law school, which wasn't really that long ago, the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice was a chance for the American people to learn about our system of checks and balances, our commitment to the rule of law, and, in particular, the independence of judges. And whenever the Senate confirmed a Justice with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, as it did almost every time, it reaffirmed that independence and reassured the American people that our courts were protected from political influence and that they stood apart from the partisanship of the other two branches of government. As we meet here tonight, after 20 years of descending into intensifying partisanship in the confirmation of judges, the Senate is now about to drag the Supreme Court down to its own decadent level by turning it into just another politicized body that is distrusted, for good reason, by the people it is meant to serve. It is common these days to observe that our institutions are failing. I have said it myself. But institutions don't fail on their own. They can't destroy themselves. It takes people to destroy them. It particularly takes leaders who have no inclusive, long-range vision for our country or our democracy; leaders who can't or won't think beyond narrow, short-term interests; and leaders, I am sorry to say, like Leader McConnell. He may imagine, as he claims, that he is simply restoring the judicial calendar to a prefilibuster era. That is what he tells his colleagues here when he recounts the story. The majority leader, more than any other actor, has transformed what used to be the overwhelming bipartisan confirmation of a qualified nominee and a bipartisan ratification of the independence of the judiciary into an entirely partisan exercise that has destroyed the Senate's constitutional responsibility to advise and consent and is now at risk of destroying the credibility of the Supreme Court and the lower courts as well. This may not matter much, I suppose, to the Senators on this floor. It matters to the American people who have not consented to the destruction of their constitutional right to an independent judiciary free from the partisan insanity of elected politicians. In this confirmation proceeding, the majority renounced its duty to advise and consent by giving their consent before the President ever chose the nominee. I don't believe that has ever happened in the history of America. Ours is a Senate where words have lost their meaning. Party advantage dictates every action. Shameless hypocrisy is the stuff of proud triumph. Deliberation is no longer necessary because conclusions are all foregone, and a decision like that affirming Judge Barrett to a lifetime appointment to the most powerful Court in the Nation is anything you have the power to cram down the throats of your political opponents. The truth is, this confirmation process has never been a debate about what the Senate should do, what the Senate ought to do, and what the right thing to do for this Senate is. It has always been a demonstration of what the majority can get away with and of how they can exercise their power in order to entrench their power. I have no expectation that my words are going to change the result tomorrow. My hope is that we can mark this as the moment that the American people said ``Enough'' and began to reclaim their exercise in self-government from those who have worked relentlessly to deprive them of it. To do that, we have to be very clear about what this moment means and what it calls on each of us to do in the days, months, and years ahead. The truth is, this confirmation is the latest victory for an unpatriotic project that traces back to the earliest days of our country. Since our founding, there have always been factions working toward an insidious purpose: to so degrade and discredit our national exercise in self-government that when the American people finally throw up their hands in disgust, these factions can distort it into an instrument for their interests instead of the public interest. Today, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, represents one such faction, joined by the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, President Trump, and the legion of deep-pocketed donors and PACs assembled behind them. Because factions like this one have a tough time winning broad support from the American people for their agenda, they seek other lessdemocratic means to secure their power--gerrymandering, voter suppression, and, in this case, cramming a nominee onto the Supreme Court during the fleeting days of a failing, unpopular administration. Over the years, earlier versions of these factions have obscured their project with terms like ``States' rights,'' ``originalism,'' ``freedom,'' and with dubious claims like ``separate but equal,'' essentially turning American words against the American people. We saw it in the 1890s, when the Supreme Court invoked freedom to strike down laws that would have let workers unionize, establish a minimum wage, prohibit child labor, and create a progressive income tax. We saw it most infamously in Plessy v. Ferguson, when the same Court hid behind equality to justify segregation. We saw it in 1905, when the Supreme Court perverted the 14th Amendment, the amendment meant to guarantee the protection of the law for those most vulnerable in our society, to invent a ``liberty to contract'' so that bakeries could freely force people to work more than 60 hours a week. Just a few years after that ruling, 145 workers were burned alive at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory after their employer took the liberty of locking them inside. We saw it in the 1930s, when the Supreme Court rewrote the commerce clause in a failed attempt to eviscerate the New Deal, FDR's historic effort to build an economy that lifted everyone up, not just those at the very top. We see it in our time, in Citizens United, Shelby, and other rulings when the Supreme Court has asserted the right of billionaires and other privileged interests to corrupt our democracy, while denying the American people's right to defend it. And we see it in Judge Barrett's adherence to originalism, the spurious legal doctrine that has been knocking around in the Federalist Society and other circles of far-right lawyers since the 1970s. By claiming to stick to an 18th century understanding of the Constitution, originalism deceptively implicates Madison, Hamilton, and the rest of the Framers in any number of legal arguments, as if they intended the Second Amendment to permit bump stocks or the interstate commerce clause to forbid environmental protections while foreclosing on legislative innovation here and now in the present because the men who gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, who could not recognize that slavery should be outlawed or that women should have the right to vote, could also not foresee the need to prohibit child labor or require food labels to tell the truth. It is no surprise to me that the originalists and the tea party-right have embraced shared hagiographies. They are stealing the authority of the Founders in an effort to conceal their reactionary project. And while the specific aims of these factions have changed over time, their project has remained the same: to protect their power and call it freedom--freedom to enslave, freedom to segregate, freedom to pay workers less than they can live on, to work them to death, to fire them because of what they believe or whom they love, to redline our neighborhoods, poison our skies, defund our schools, and buy our elections. At all times, though, their goal has been to preserve, as Professor Jefferson Cowie puts it, the freedom to dominate others--not only to cement their power but to demolish the economic opportunity and civil rights that would otherwise empower their fellow Americans. Why would they do this? Because, in truth, the original promise of America--that it would be a society in which all people would be created equal and endowed with equal rights--terrifies them. The consequences for our country and for its citizens who do not benefit from this project are plain. It batters our political and economic equity, security, and opportunity. It degrades our democracy. It robs from future American generations by hoarding wealth today. This confirmation is their latest ill-gotten victory. Judge Barrett's nomination comes to this floor on a path cleared by the same deep-pocketed donors and corporations that have worked for decades to protect their power, regardless of the cost to the American people and their security, well-being, and civil rights. And based on everything I have learned about Judge Barrett's record, I fear she will become one more predictable vote for that agenda. In her tenure on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett sided with corporations in 85 percent of her business-related cases. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by race. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by age. She sided with debt collectors over consumers. She voted to block compensation for victims of a compensation fund. She voted against workers' fight for overtime. The pattern is clear: When consumers and workers sought the protection of the law or the government, she stood in the way. I worry that, once confirmed, she will continue that pattern with rulings to destroy hard-won protections for the American people--rulings to cripple agencies to keep our air and water clean, our food and drugs safe, and our families protected from scammers trying to rip them off; rulings to make it harder for Americans to choose how and when to raise a family or marry the person they love; rulings to make it easier for felons to buy guns and harder for us to hold gunmakers accountable when their weapons kill and maim our children in their schools and on our streets; rulings to block any effort by the American people to fight the voter suppression, to fight the dark money, and the partisan gerrymandering corrupting our democracy. Finally, I worry that she will cast the deciding vote to destroy the Affordable Care Act and strip healthcare from millions of people in Colorado and across the country for whom this is literally a matter of life and death. Justice Barrett's confirmation will cement a 6-to-3 majority on the Court that will allow the powerful to do what they want, while standing against the American people's efforts to protect one another, to support one another, and to invest in each other through our democracy. That is where we are. That is where we are. As dispiriting as this moment may be, we have been here before as a country. We are not the first generation of Americans to face the Senate or a Supreme Court that will stand with the powerful against the people. We are not the first citizens to run into a wall of obstruction as we work to make this country more democratic, more fair, and more free. We have to learn from the examples of those who came before us, those who answered slavery with emancipation and reconstruction; a Gilded Age with a Progressive Era; a Great Depression with a New Deal; Jim Crow with civil rights. As it was for them, so it is for us to meet the challenges of our time. And unlike the forces that have brought us to this low point, we have a much harder job because we have a far greater purpose. Theirs has been to grind our democracy into rubble; ours is to build a strong foundation for the American people and the next generation. The American people need us to begin building that foundation now. They have already paid enough for a government that fails to fight on their behalf--50 years, when 90 percent of families haven't had a pay raise; the worst income inequality since 1928; people working harder and harder than ever before but whose families are sliding farther away from the middle class, and now--and now--a national government paralyzed by ineptitude, incompetence, indifference, and basic scientific ignorance that has led to thousands of needless deaths of our fellow citizens and pushed millions of families and businesses over the brink. We must end this era and replace it with more honorable commitment to competent and imaginative self-government responsive to the American people's needs. Their wishes are more than fair. They want a wage they can live on, a healthcare system that no longer routinely reduces families to tears, with options they can actually afford and count on when they need them, schools that create possibility and opportunity and colleges that leave students with more than just crippling debt; the chance to care for a new child or a sick family member without having to quit a job or lose their pay, safe communities where parents no longer have toworry about their kids being shot, criminal justice and law enforcement and immigration systems that don't treat people differently because of the color of their skin, roads and bridges and airports that weren't built by their grandparents, broadband that works at home so kids don't have to go to school in Walmart parking lots in this country tonight, an urgent and durable answer for climate change so the next generation doesn't inherit a planet hurtling toward incineration. None of this is unreasonable; all of it is achievable; and we can start with the coming elections. But that is only the beginning of the fight. I can assure you that the same faction that was willing to enlist every parliamentary gimmick or deploy any oratorical sleight of hand or commit any act of institutional arson in service of someone like Donald Trump will continue to do whatever they can get away with in this body. They are not going to stop. They have spent decades and billions in dark money, exercising their power to entrench their power. They will not abandon this project in a single election. And we are going to have to overcome that, just as we are going to have to overcome the Supreme Court. It won't be easy. It won't be easy, but anyone who studied the history of our country, our democracy, knows how hard it is to make progress. It is never easy. Time and again, Americans have breached the ramparts of undemocratic power. It happened in 1848 in Seneca Falls, when 100 people--mostly women--signed the Declaration of Sentiments. It happened outside the Stonewall Inn in 1969, when thousands stood up to police abuse of the city's LGBT citizens. It happened when Cesar Chavez lifted the plight of America's farmworkers and Corky Gonzalez gave voice to the history and stifled pride of a people. It happened in 1965, when 2,500 citizens crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to the Alabama capital city of Montgomery. Each time a few brave citizens have advanced upon the work of despotism, their fellow Americans joining them, because they, too, longed for a better country. Perhaps this summer we crossed this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge, when fatigued by still unending months of disease, ashamed by Donald Trump's embrace of White supremacy and his failing efforts to make the United States look like a police state, forced to reckon again with the brutal and systemic racism of our justice and law enforcement system, Americans decided they could no longer stand a country on such terrible terms, or perhaps this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge is still before us, unknown but there for those who will do their part to bend the moral arc of the universe. But we must cross this bridge I hope sooner rather than later. Like our forebearers, we will cross it only by pursuing ideas so compelling that Americans will fight for them to make a real difference in their lives. As always, our march won't begin in the Chamber of the Senate. But when Dr. King, John Lewis, and the many who joined them, crossed their generation's bridge, the Senate eventually followed and broke the segregationist stranglehold on this body. Rather than turn his back on what was obviously right, the Republican leader, joined his Democratic counterpart, Mike Mansfield, to lock arms in support of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The segregationist filibuster withered in the face of noble, bipartisan majorities. When our time comes once again in the Senate to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we will have to muster the discipline to stand behind an agenda that will endure, one sturdy enough for a project of our own. And if we do our job, my hope is that 50 years from now, our kids and grandkids will look back with gratitude that we built on this foundation a house that they and their children love to live in--an America that is more democratic, more fair, and more free I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6483-2 | null | 1,558 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, when I was in law school, which wasn't really that long ago, the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice was a chance for the American people to learn about our system of checks and balances, our commitment to the rule of law, and, in particular, the independence of judges. And whenever the Senate confirmed a Justice with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, as it did almost every time, it reaffirmed that independence and reassured the American people that our courts were protected from political influence and that they stood apart from the partisanship of the other two branches of government. As we meet here tonight, after 20 years of descending into intensifying partisanship in the confirmation of judges, the Senate is now about to drag the Supreme Court down to its own decadent level by turning it into just another politicized body that is distrusted, for good reason, by the people it is meant to serve. It is common these days to observe that our institutions are failing. I have said it myself. But institutions don't fail on their own. They can't destroy themselves. It takes people to destroy them. It particularly takes leaders who have no inclusive, long-range vision for our country or our democracy; leaders who can't or won't think beyond narrow, short-term interests; and leaders, I am sorry to say, like Leader McConnell. He may imagine, as he claims, that he is simply restoring the judicial calendar to a prefilibuster era. That is what he tells his colleagues here when he recounts the story. The majority leader, more than any other actor, has transformed what used to be the overwhelming bipartisan confirmation of a qualified nominee and a bipartisan ratification of the independence of the judiciary into an entirely partisan exercise that has destroyed the Senate's constitutional responsibility to advise and consent and is now at risk of destroying the credibility of the Supreme Court and the lower courts as well. This may not matter much, I suppose, to the Senators on this floor. It matters to the American people who have not consented to the destruction of their constitutional right to an independent judiciary free from the partisan insanity of elected politicians. In this confirmation proceeding, the majority renounced its duty to advise and consent by giving their consent before the President ever chose the nominee. I don't believe that has ever happened in the history of America. Ours is a Senate where words have lost their meaning. Party advantage dictates every action. Shameless hypocrisy is the stuff of proud triumph. Deliberation is no longer necessary because conclusions are all foregone, and a decision like that affirming Judge Barrett to a lifetime appointment to the most powerful Court in the Nation is anything you have the power to cram down the throats of your political opponents. The truth is, this confirmation process has never been a debate about what the Senate should do, what the Senate ought to do, and what the right thing to do for this Senate is. It has always been a demonstration of what the majority can get away with and of how they can exercise their power in order to entrench their power. I have no expectation that my words are going to change the result tomorrow. My hope is that we can mark this as the moment that the American people said ``Enough'' and began to reclaim their exercise in self-government from those who have worked relentlessly to deprive them of it. To do that, we have to be very clear about what this moment means and what it calls on each of us to do in the days, months, and years ahead. The truth is, this confirmation is the latest victory for an unpatriotic project that traces back to the earliest days of our country. Since our founding, there have always been factions working toward an insidious purpose: to so degrade and discredit our national exercise in self-government that when the American people finally throw up their hands in disgust, these factions can distort it into an instrument for their interests instead of the public interest. Today, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, represents one such faction, joined by the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, President Trump, and the legion of deep-pocketed donors and PACs assembled behind them. Because factions like this one have a tough time winning broad support from the American people for their agenda, they seek other lessdemocratic means to secure their power--gerrymandering, voter suppression, and, in this case, cramming a nominee onto the Supreme Court during the fleeting days of a failing, unpopular administration. Over the years, earlier versions of these factions have obscured their project with terms like ``States' rights,'' ``originalism,'' ``freedom,'' and with dubious claims like ``separate but equal,'' essentially turning American words against the American people. We saw it in the 1890s, when the Supreme Court invoked freedom to strike down laws that would have let workers unionize, establish a minimum wage, prohibit child labor, and create a progressive income tax. We saw it most infamously in Plessy v. Ferguson, when the same Court hid behind equality to justify segregation. We saw it in 1905, when the Supreme Court perverted the 14th Amendment, the amendment meant to guarantee the protection of the law for those most vulnerable in our society, to invent a ``liberty to contract'' so that bakeries could freely force people to work more than 60 hours a week. Just a few years after that ruling, 145 workers were burned alive at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory after their employer took the liberty of locking them inside. We saw it in the 1930s, when the Supreme Court rewrote the commerce clause in a failed attempt to eviscerate the New Deal, FDR's historic effort to build an economy that lifted everyone up, not just those at the very top. We see it in our time, in Citizens United, Shelby, and other rulings when the Supreme Court has asserted the right of billionaires and other privileged interests to corrupt our democracy, while denying the American people's right to defend it. And we see it in Judge Barrett's adherence to originalism, the spurious legal doctrine that has been knocking around in the Federalist Society and other circles of far-right lawyers since the 1970s. By claiming to stick to an 18th century understanding of the Constitution, originalism deceptively implicates Madison, Hamilton, and the rest of the Framers in any number of legal arguments, as if they intended the Second Amendment to permit bump stocks or the interstate commerce clause to forbid environmental protections while foreclosing on legislative innovation here and now in the present because the men who gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, who could not recognize that slavery should be outlawed or that women should have the right to vote, could also not foresee the need to prohibit child labor or require food labels to tell the truth. It is no surprise to me that the originalists and the tea party-right have embraced shared hagiographies. They are stealing the authority of the Founders in an effort to conceal their reactionary project. And while the specific aims of these factions have changed over time, their project has remained the same: to protect their power and call it freedom--freedom to enslave, freedom to segregate, freedom to pay workers less than they can live on, to work them to death, to fire them because of what they believe or whom they love, to redline our neighborhoods, poison our skies, defund our schools, and buy our elections. At all times, though, their goal has been to preserve, as Professor Jefferson Cowie puts it, the freedom to dominate others--not only to cement their power but to demolish the economic opportunity and civil rights that would otherwise empower their fellow Americans. Why would they do this? Because, in truth, the original promise of America--that it would be a society in which all people would be created equal and endowed with equal rights--terrifies them. The consequences for our country and for its citizens who do not benefit from this project are plain. It batters our political and economic equity, security, and opportunity. It degrades our democracy. It robs from future American generations by hoarding wealth today. This confirmation is their latest ill-gotten victory. Judge Barrett's nomination comes to this floor on a path cleared by the same deep-pocketed donors and corporations that have worked for decades to protect their power, regardless of the cost to the American people and their security, well-being, and civil rights. And based on everything I have learned about Judge Barrett's record, I fear she will become one more predictable vote for that agenda. In her tenure on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett sided with corporations in 85 percent of her business-related cases. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by race. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by age. She sided with debt collectors over consumers. She voted to block compensation for victims of a compensation fund. She voted against workers' fight for overtime. The pattern is clear: When consumers and workers sought the protection of the law or the government, she stood in the way. I worry that, once confirmed, she will continue that pattern with rulings to destroy hard-won protections for the American people--rulings to cripple agencies to keep our air and water clean, our food and drugs safe, and our families protected from scammers trying to rip them off; rulings to make it harder for Americans to choose how and when to raise a family or marry the person they love; rulings to make it easier for felons to buy guns and harder for us to hold gunmakers accountable when their weapons kill and maim our children in their schools and on our streets; rulings to block any effort by the American people to fight the voter suppression, to fight the dark money, and the partisan gerrymandering corrupting our democracy. Finally, I worry that she will cast the deciding vote to destroy the Affordable Care Act and strip healthcare from millions of people in Colorado and across the country for whom this is literally a matter of life and death. Justice Barrett's confirmation will cement a 6-to-3 majority on the Court that will allow the powerful to do what they want, while standing against the American people's efforts to protect one another, to support one another, and to invest in each other through our democracy. That is where we are. That is where we are. As dispiriting as this moment may be, we have been here before as a country. We are not the first generation of Americans to face the Senate or a Supreme Court that will stand with the powerful against the people. We are not the first citizens to run into a wall of obstruction as we work to make this country more democratic, more fair, and more free. We have to learn from the examples of those who came before us, those who answered slavery with emancipation and reconstruction; a Gilded Age with a Progressive Era; a Great Depression with a New Deal; Jim Crow with civil rights. As it was for them, so it is for us to meet the challenges of our time. And unlike the forces that have brought us to this low point, we have a much harder job because we have a far greater purpose. Theirs has been to grind our democracy into rubble; ours is to build a strong foundation for the American people and the next generation. The American people need us to begin building that foundation now. They have already paid enough for a government that fails to fight on their behalf--50 years, when 90 percent of families haven't had a pay raise; the worst income inequality since 1928; people working harder and harder than ever before but whose families are sliding farther away from the middle class, and now--and now--a national government paralyzed by ineptitude, incompetence, indifference, and basic scientific ignorance that has led to thousands of needless deaths of our fellow citizens and pushed millions of families and businesses over the brink. We must end this era and replace it with more honorable commitment to competent and imaginative self-government responsive to the American people's needs. Their wishes are more than fair. They want a wage they can live on, a healthcare system that no longer routinely reduces families to tears, with options they can actually afford and count on when they need them, schools that create possibility and opportunity and colleges that leave students with more than just crippling debt; the chance to care for a new child or a sick family member without having to quit a job or lose their pay, safe communities where parents no longer have toworry about their kids being shot, criminal justice and law enforcement and immigration systems that don't treat people differently because of the color of their skin, roads and bridges and airports that weren't built by their grandparents, broadband that works at home so kids don't have to go to school in Walmart parking lots in this country tonight, an urgent and durable answer for climate change so the next generation doesn't inherit a planet hurtling toward incineration. None of this is unreasonable; all of it is achievable; and we can start with the coming elections. But that is only the beginning of the fight. I can assure you that the same faction that was willing to enlist every parliamentary gimmick or deploy any oratorical sleight of hand or commit any act of institutional arson in service of someone like Donald Trump will continue to do whatever they can get away with in this body. They are not going to stop. They have spent decades and billions in dark money, exercising their power to entrench their power. They will not abandon this project in a single election. And we are going to have to overcome that, just as we are going to have to overcome the Supreme Court. It won't be easy. It won't be easy, but anyone who studied the history of our country, our democracy, knows how hard it is to make progress. It is never easy. Time and again, Americans have breached the ramparts of undemocratic power. It happened in 1848 in Seneca Falls, when 100 people--mostly women--signed the Declaration of Sentiments. It happened outside the Stonewall Inn in 1969, when thousands stood up to police abuse of the city's LGBT citizens. It happened when Cesar Chavez lifted the plight of America's farmworkers and Corky Gonzalez gave voice to the history and stifled pride of a people. It happened in 1965, when 2,500 citizens crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to the Alabama capital city of Montgomery. Each time a few brave citizens have advanced upon the work of despotism, their fellow Americans joining them, because they, too, longed for a better country. Perhaps this summer we crossed this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge, when fatigued by still unending months of disease, ashamed by Donald Trump's embrace of White supremacy and his failing efforts to make the United States look like a police state, forced to reckon again with the brutal and systemic racism of our justice and law enforcement system, Americans decided they could no longer stand a country on such terrible terms, or perhaps this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge is still before us, unknown but there for those who will do their part to bend the moral arc of the universe. But we must cross this bridge I hope sooner rather than later. Like our forebearers, we will cross it only by pursuing ideas so compelling that Americans will fight for them to make a real difference in their lives. As always, our march won't begin in the Chamber of the Senate. But when Dr. King, John Lewis, and the many who joined them, crossed their generation's bridge, the Senate eventually followed and broke the segregationist stranglehold on this body. Rather than turn his back on what was obviously right, the Republican leader, joined his Democratic counterpart, Mike Mansfield, to lock arms in support of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The segregationist filibuster withered in the face of noble, bipartisan majorities. When our time comes once again in the Senate to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we will have to muster the discipline to stand behind an agenda that will endure, one sturdy enough for a project of our own. And if we do our job, my hope is that 50 years from now, our kids and grandkids will look back with gratitude that we built on this foundation a house that they and their children love to live in--an America that is more democratic, more fair, and more free I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6483-2 | null | 1,559 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, when I was in law school, which wasn't really that long ago, the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice was a chance for the American people to learn about our system of checks and balances, our commitment to the rule of law, and, in particular, the independence of judges. And whenever the Senate confirmed a Justice with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, as it did almost every time, it reaffirmed that independence and reassured the American people that our courts were protected from political influence and that they stood apart from the partisanship of the other two branches of government. As we meet here tonight, after 20 years of descending into intensifying partisanship in the confirmation of judges, the Senate is now about to drag the Supreme Court down to its own decadent level by turning it into just another politicized body that is distrusted, for good reason, by the people it is meant to serve. It is common these days to observe that our institutions are failing. I have said it myself. But institutions don't fail on their own. They can't destroy themselves. It takes people to destroy them. It particularly takes leaders who have no inclusive, long-range vision for our country or our democracy; leaders who can't or won't think beyond narrow, short-term interests; and leaders, I am sorry to say, like Leader McConnell. He may imagine, as he claims, that he is simply restoring the judicial calendar to a prefilibuster era. That is what he tells his colleagues here when he recounts the story. The majority leader, more than any other actor, has transformed what used to be the overwhelming bipartisan confirmation of a qualified nominee and a bipartisan ratification of the independence of the judiciary into an entirely partisan exercise that has destroyed the Senate's constitutional responsibility to advise and consent and is now at risk of destroying the credibility of the Supreme Court and the lower courts as well. This may not matter much, I suppose, to the Senators on this floor. It matters to the American people who have not consented to the destruction of their constitutional right to an independent judiciary free from the partisan insanity of elected politicians. In this confirmation proceeding, the majority renounced its duty to advise and consent by giving their consent before the President ever chose the nominee. I don't believe that has ever happened in the history of America. Ours is a Senate where words have lost their meaning. Party advantage dictates every action. Shameless hypocrisy is the stuff of proud triumph. Deliberation is no longer necessary because conclusions are all foregone, and a decision like that affirming Judge Barrett to a lifetime appointment to the most powerful Court in the Nation is anything you have the power to cram down the throats of your political opponents. The truth is, this confirmation process has never been a debate about what the Senate should do, what the Senate ought to do, and what the right thing to do for this Senate is. It has always been a demonstration of what the majority can get away with and of how they can exercise their power in order to entrench their power. I have no expectation that my words are going to change the result tomorrow. My hope is that we can mark this as the moment that the American people said ``Enough'' and began to reclaim their exercise in self-government from those who have worked relentlessly to deprive them of it. To do that, we have to be very clear about what this moment means and what it calls on each of us to do in the days, months, and years ahead. The truth is, this confirmation is the latest victory for an unpatriotic project that traces back to the earliest days of our country. Since our founding, there have always been factions working toward an insidious purpose: to so degrade and discredit our national exercise in self-government that when the American people finally throw up their hands in disgust, these factions can distort it into an instrument for their interests instead of the public interest. Today, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, represents one such faction, joined by the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, President Trump, and the legion of deep-pocketed donors and PACs assembled behind them. Because factions like this one have a tough time winning broad support from the American people for their agenda, they seek other lessdemocratic means to secure their power--gerrymandering, voter suppression, and, in this case, cramming a nominee onto the Supreme Court during the fleeting days of a failing, unpopular administration. Over the years, earlier versions of these factions have obscured their project with terms like ``States' rights,'' ``originalism,'' ``freedom,'' and with dubious claims like ``separate but equal,'' essentially turning American words against the American people. We saw it in the 1890s, when the Supreme Court invoked freedom to strike down laws that would have let workers unionize, establish a minimum wage, prohibit child labor, and create a progressive income tax. We saw it most infamously in Plessy v. Ferguson, when the same Court hid behind equality to justify segregation. We saw it in 1905, when the Supreme Court perverted the 14th Amendment, the amendment meant to guarantee the protection of the law for those most vulnerable in our society, to invent a ``liberty to contract'' so that bakeries could freely force people to work more than 60 hours a week. Just a few years after that ruling, 145 workers were burned alive at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory after their employer took the liberty of locking them inside. We saw it in the 1930s, when the Supreme Court rewrote the commerce clause in a failed attempt to eviscerate the New Deal, FDR's historic effort to build an economy that lifted everyone up, not just those at the very top. We see it in our time, in Citizens United, Shelby, and other rulings when the Supreme Court has asserted the right of billionaires and other privileged interests to corrupt our democracy, while denying the American people's right to defend it. And we see it in Judge Barrett's adherence to originalism, the spurious legal doctrine that has been knocking around in the Federalist Society and other circles of far-right lawyers since the 1970s. By claiming to stick to an 18th century understanding of the Constitution, originalism deceptively implicates Madison, Hamilton, and the rest of the Framers in any number of legal arguments, as if they intended the Second Amendment to permit bump stocks or the interstate commerce clause to forbid environmental protections while foreclosing on legislative innovation here and now in the present because the men who gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, who could not recognize that slavery should be outlawed or that women should have the right to vote, could also not foresee the need to prohibit child labor or require food labels to tell the truth. It is no surprise to me that the originalists and the tea party-right have embraced shared hagiographies. They are stealing the authority of the Founders in an effort to conceal their reactionary project. And while the specific aims of these factions have changed over time, their project has remained the same: to protect their power and call it freedom--freedom to enslave, freedom to segregate, freedom to pay workers less than they can live on, to work them to death, to fire them because of what they believe or whom they love, to redline our neighborhoods, poison our skies, defund our schools, and buy our elections. At all times, though, their goal has been to preserve, as Professor Jefferson Cowie puts it, the freedom to dominate others--not only to cement their power but to demolish the economic opportunity and civil rights that would otherwise empower their fellow Americans. Why would they do this? Because, in truth, the original promise of America--that it would be a society in which all people would be created equal and endowed with equal rights--terrifies them. The consequences for our country and for its citizens who do not benefit from this project are plain. It batters our political and economic equity, security, and opportunity. It degrades our democracy. It robs from future American generations by hoarding wealth today. This confirmation is their latest ill-gotten victory. Judge Barrett's nomination comes to this floor on a path cleared by the same deep-pocketed donors and corporations that have worked for decades to protect their power, regardless of the cost to the American people and their security, well-being, and civil rights. And based on everything I have learned about Judge Barrett's record, I fear she will become one more predictable vote for that agenda. In her tenure on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett sided with corporations in 85 percent of her business-related cases. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by race. She sided with employers accused of discriminating by age. She sided with debt collectors over consumers. She voted to block compensation for victims of a compensation fund. She voted against workers' fight for overtime. The pattern is clear: When consumers and workers sought the protection of the law or the government, she stood in the way. I worry that, once confirmed, she will continue that pattern with rulings to destroy hard-won protections for the American people--rulings to cripple agencies to keep our air and water clean, our food and drugs safe, and our families protected from scammers trying to rip them off; rulings to make it harder for Americans to choose how and when to raise a family or marry the person they love; rulings to make it easier for felons to buy guns and harder for us to hold gunmakers accountable when their weapons kill and maim our children in their schools and on our streets; rulings to block any effort by the American people to fight the voter suppression, to fight the dark money, and the partisan gerrymandering corrupting our democracy. Finally, I worry that she will cast the deciding vote to destroy the Affordable Care Act and strip healthcare from millions of people in Colorado and across the country for whom this is literally a matter of life and death. Justice Barrett's confirmation will cement a 6-to-3 majority on the Court that will allow the powerful to do what they want, while standing against the American people's efforts to protect one another, to support one another, and to invest in each other through our democracy. That is where we are. That is where we are. As dispiriting as this moment may be, we have been here before as a country. We are not the first generation of Americans to face the Senate or a Supreme Court that will stand with the powerful against the people. We are not the first citizens to run into a wall of obstruction as we work to make this country more democratic, more fair, and more free. We have to learn from the examples of those who came before us, those who answered slavery with emancipation and reconstruction; a Gilded Age with a Progressive Era; a Great Depression with a New Deal; Jim Crow with civil rights. As it was for them, so it is for us to meet the challenges of our time. And unlike the forces that have brought us to this low point, we have a much harder job because we have a far greater purpose. Theirs has been to grind our democracy into rubble; ours is to build a strong foundation for the American people and the next generation. The American people need us to begin building that foundation now. They have already paid enough for a government that fails to fight on their behalf--50 years, when 90 percent of families haven't had a pay raise; the worst income inequality since 1928; people working harder and harder than ever before but whose families are sliding farther away from the middle class, and now--and now--a national government paralyzed by ineptitude, incompetence, indifference, and basic scientific ignorance that has led to thousands of needless deaths of our fellow citizens and pushed millions of families and businesses over the brink. We must end this era and replace it with more honorable commitment to competent and imaginative self-government responsive to the American people's needs. Their wishes are more than fair. They want a wage they can live on, a healthcare system that no longer routinely reduces families to tears, with options they can actually afford and count on when they need them, schools that create possibility and opportunity and colleges that leave students with more than just crippling debt; the chance to care for a new child or a sick family member without having to quit a job or lose their pay, safe communities where parents no longer have toworry about their kids being shot, criminal justice and law enforcement and immigration systems that don't treat people differently because of the color of their skin, roads and bridges and airports that weren't built by their grandparents, broadband that works at home so kids don't have to go to school in Walmart parking lots in this country tonight, an urgent and durable answer for climate change so the next generation doesn't inherit a planet hurtling toward incineration. None of this is unreasonable; all of it is achievable; and we can start with the coming elections. But that is only the beginning of the fight. I can assure you that the same faction that was willing to enlist every parliamentary gimmick or deploy any oratorical sleight of hand or commit any act of institutional arson in service of someone like Donald Trump will continue to do whatever they can get away with in this body. They are not going to stop. They have spent decades and billions in dark money, exercising their power to entrench their power. They will not abandon this project in a single election. And we are going to have to overcome that, just as we are going to have to overcome the Supreme Court. It won't be easy. It won't be easy, but anyone who studied the history of our country, our democracy, knows how hard it is to make progress. It is never easy. Time and again, Americans have breached the ramparts of undemocratic power. It happened in 1848 in Seneca Falls, when 100 people--mostly women--signed the Declaration of Sentiments. It happened outside the Stonewall Inn in 1969, when thousands stood up to police abuse of the city's LGBT citizens. It happened when Cesar Chavez lifted the plight of America's farmworkers and Corky Gonzalez gave voice to the history and stifled pride of a people. It happened in 1965, when 2,500 citizens crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the way to the Alabama capital city of Montgomery. Each time a few brave citizens have advanced upon the work of despotism, their fellow Americans joining them, because they, too, longed for a better country. Perhaps this summer we crossed this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge, when fatigued by still unending months of disease, ashamed by Donald Trump's embrace of White supremacy and his failing efforts to make the United States look like a police state, forced to reckon again with the brutal and systemic racism of our justice and law enforcement system, Americans decided they could no longer stand a country on such terrible terms, or perhaps this generation's Edmund Pettus Bridge is still before us, unknown but there for those who will do their part to bend the moral arc of the universe. But we must cross this bridge I hope sooner rather than later. Like our forebearers, we will cross it only by pursuing ideas so compelling that Americans will fight for them to make a real difference in their lives. As always, our march won't begin in the Chamber of the Senate. But when Dr. King, John Lewis, and the many who joined them, crossed their generation's bridge, the Senate eventually followed and broke the segregationist stranglehold on this body. Rather than turn his back on what was obviously right, the Republican leader, joined his Democratic counterpart, Mike Mansfield, to lock arms in support of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The segregationist filibuster withered in the face of noble, bipartisan majorities. When our time comes once again in the Senate to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we will have to muster the discipline to stand behind an agenda that will endure, one sturdy enough for a project of our own. And if we do our job, my hope is that 50 years from now, our kids and grandkids will look back with gratitude that we built on this foundation a house that they and their children love to live in--an America that is more democratic, more fair, and more free I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6483-2 | null | 1,560 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-244. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan urging the United States Congress to repeal the federal ban on Pell Grants for prison-based education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. House Resolution No. 234 Whereas, The federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. Pell grants have been helping millions of low- income students across the country access postsecondary education for 45 years; and Whereas, The federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act denied all incarcerated individuals' eligibility for federal financial aid in 1994, making prisoners ineligible to receive Pell grants and therefore less likely to obtain a postsecondary degree while incarcerated. Until 1992, Pell grants were available to incarcerated individuals. As a result, education programs expanded throughout the prison system, and by 1990, there were 772 prison college programs in more than 1,000 correctional facilities; and Whereas, Postsecondary courses and training for incarcerated people will make them more likely to secure jobs and succeed economically upon release. While currently only 24 percent of people in federal prison have had access to some postsecondary education, 65 percent of all new jobs nationwide now require a postsecondary degree; and Whereas, Postsecondary education and training programs lead to lower recidivism rates, less crime, and improved public safety. Incarcerated people who participate in postsecondary education and training programs are 43 percent less likely to recidivate than those who do not participate; and Whereas, Prison education reduces violence within the prison system. Prisons with college programs have fewer violent incidents, which allows corrections officials to do their jobs in a safer environment; and Whereas, Prison-based education is cost-effective. Every dollar invested in prison-based education yields $4.00 to $5.00 in taxpayer savings in reduced long-term incarceration costs; and Whereas, Removing the federal ban on Pell grants for prison education would expand access to postsecondary education for people in Michigan's prisons; and Whereas, Should the surplus for the Pell grant program run low and there is a need to prioritize the awarding of Pell grants, non-prisoner applicants should have priority over prisoner applicants; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we memorialize the Congress of the United States to repeal the federal ban on Pell grants for prison-based education; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt1-PgS6504 | null | 1,561 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, the Senate used to be a body that valued bipartisanship, deliberation, and compromise--a body that balanced the demands for debate with the demands for action. But that was in the past. The Senate no longer is the body that examines, considers, and protects our democracy. The Senate I see now is ruled by partisanship and uncompromising ideology, and in their rush to jam through a divisive nomination days before the election and before the American people get a chance to have their say, the majority leader and the Republican Party are inflicting procedural violence on the Senate itself and the American people to achieve their ideological objectives. In fact, many Republicans bragged that they had the votes to confirm the President's nominee before the nominee was chosen. The world's greatest deliberative body, with the constitutional responsibility for advice and consent and a special responsibility to advise and consent on the highest Court in the land, decided that they were A-OK with whatever Donald Trump decided, that their role in advice and consent was to basically agree in advance and to abdicate their role. Now, we are not a parliamentary system. We are a separate, coequal branch of the government, and we are supposed to have our own views. The Federalist Society is not a branch of government. Donald Trump should not run the U.S. Senate. Nobody outside of this Chamber should be in charge of us, and to announce that you are for a nominee, sight unseen, is an abdication of your role. Why would you even run for this job? Why would you even run for this job? Just go be the executive vice president of the Federalist Society. If you don't believe in the importance of the legislative branch, don't be a legislator. We are less than 2 weeks away from the most consequential decision, election, of our lifetimes. Almost 60 million Americans have already voted. And there are legitimate concerns around an election dispute, and that is because of the President. The President has proposed postponing the election. He has threatened to challenge the results if he doesn't win. He has called it rigged in advance. He has refused repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. He has openly admitted that one of the reasons that he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee--one of the reasons he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee--is, in case there is an election dispute, to referee which votes get counted. What is funny about this--not funny like hilarious funny but kind of weird funny--is that that is the kind of thing that, if I said that you are just putting this person in to referee an election dispute, I would have expected the people on the other side to say: How dare you make that accusation? But, to the contrary, the junior Senator from Texas actually said that is the reason they have to hurry: We had better get her in so she can rule against counting votes--in wherever the Democrats are counting their votes. That is what he said. This isn't a partisan accusation. It is literally what Ted Cruz said. The President of the United States expects his nominee, Judge Barrett, to be Justice Barrett tomorrow night, to assist him with ensuring reelection, if necessary. These statements by the President should alarm every Member of this body--Democrat and Republican. But, actually, it didn't alarm certain Members. They found that to be a justification for hurrying. Disturbingly, in an exchange with the Senator from New Jersey, Judge Barrett would not say that President Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. When the Senator from California asked her if the Constitution gives the President the power to delay an election, Judge Barrett said that she didn't want to give off-the-cuff answers, even though the Constitution does not, in fact, give the President that power. This is part of a pattern. I will take you through some of this stuff. Anytime there is a live controversy--and by ``live controversy'' it is, basically, anytime Donald Trump says something--she is unwilling to cross him. She is unwilling to cross him. Our judges are supposed to be independent and unbiased interpreters of the law. That means Judge Barrett should know what the law says and how to apply it, especially when the President threatens to break it in order to hold onto political power. But she dodged these important questions and refused to defend democracy. I have real doubts about her ability to serve our Nation impartially, especially in the case of an election dispute. There was a 4-4 decision which allowed a lower court decision to be upheld regarding--it is an election dispute in Pennsylvania. I won't get into great detail. The litigants now, because it was 4-4, are going right back to the Supreme Court, figuring that Amy Coney Barrett will rule for them, in the middle of this election. This isn't some theoretical, wild-eyed, internet-driven paranoia. This is happening. They went back to the Supreme Court to say: How about now? And I would be a little surprised if they don't rule 5-4 on behalf of Republicans who want to restrict the vote. In moving forward with the confirmation, the Senate Republicans and the majority leader are going against the precedent they set 4 years ago. Look, I understand. I am reasonably good at politics. I know that hypocrisy abounds. I understand that hypocrisy abounds. I understand that, if we take our case to the American voter and say, ``They are hypocrites,'' the American voters are going to shrug their shoulders and say, ``You're all hypocrites.'' I get that. But I am a little bit old-school in the following way: I come from a legislature, and I believe your word should be your bond. Otherwise, this kind of place won't work. When Lindsey Graham said, ``Use my words against me,'' I actually believed him. I have worked with Lindsey before. I have had dinner with Lindsey. I sort of personally like him. That probably gets me in tons of trouble politically. But I just guess I thought that, if I am coming from the Hawaii Legislature, where your word is your bond, that is the most foundational rule of politics. I remember when I was first elected in 1998. The National Conference of State Legislatures, this training body for legislators, used to issue cassette tapes about how to be an effective legislator. And I remember this. The first tape, I would stick it in my Nissan truck, and I listened to it every day--Roz Baker. Your word is your bond. That is the most important coin of the realm. And I get that. Look, most of the people in this body are pretty smart. So they are going to use their ample brains to justify their new position. But let's be clear: This is the most rank hypocrisy I have ever seen in anything politically, and it is one of the most important things that I have ever seen. It is not a trivial thing that you held up Merrick Garland. Now, do I go around saying that on the cable shows and whatever? No, because I know, outside of this body, nobody cares. Inside of this body, we are supposed to careabout stuff like that. Inside of this body, your word is supposed to count for something. It is not supposed to be about the maximal use of power in tricking each other and tricking the public. Here is what Mitch McConnell said about Merrick Garland: ``The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled.'' The Senator from South Carolina said: I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ``Lindsey Graham said let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination,'' and you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right. The Senator from Texas said: ``The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice.'' It is not just my Republican colleagues who have reversed their position. It is Judge Barrett herself who actually warned against making changes on the Court in an election year. She said: We're talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the Court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the Court. It's not a lateral move. You know what else isn't a lateral move? Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett. Our Democratic institutions depend on the trust of the American people, and we cannot find that bond of trust if we don't have it amongst ourselves. It is worth mentioning here that Senate Republicans are also choosing to confirm Judge Barrett instead of addressing the pandemic. You know, that is another thing that sort of sounds hypocritical because maybe I am exaggerating it. But, no, that is actually true. Mitch McConnell is very clear. He didn't want a COVID bill on the floor because he is worried that it would push this thing past the election. So it is really clear, right? He said--I think it was in May--he didn't feel a sense of urgency. He basically sat back and let Mnuchin and Pelosi negotiate, even though whatever they come to will be blown up here because he doesn't have the votes for hardly anything. But let's be really clear. His priority is judges. His priority is always judges. It is like a joke here. We fly in. A lot of us fly out on the weekends. When we arrive, we say, What is on deck for this week? And everyone says: Nominations. You have a circuit judge. We have a district judge. We have another district judge. How many is it? Oh, it is five judges this week, no legislating going on. That has become the way this place operates. We are not the world's greatest deliberative body. We are just like a little factory that approves Federal judges, and that is how Mitch McConnell wants it. It is especially egregious when so many people need so much help. This is a world historic event. You have 220,000 people dead. You have about 1,000 people dying a day. You have businesses closing forever. You have economic extinction all over the country--red States, blue States, rural areas, urban areas, suburban areas. The highest priority for Mitch McConnell is stacking the courts. That is really the game for them. It is important to know who Judge Barrett is. I want to be really clear--she seems super pleasant. She is obviously incredibly accomplished academically. None of this is personal for me. But she was groomed by this organization called the Federalist Society. We need to understand who they are and what they do. They basically saw that they had an opportunity to start to identify and groom and place young ideologues. Those are the two key words. You have to be young, and you have to be pretty ideological, and then you are in the Federalist Society, and then you can get a district court job. Maybe you are going to be a prosecutor first, or maybe you are going to be a district court judge, or maybe you are going to run for office. But the whole deal is, this is their farm team. The Federalist Society has very specific views--socially conservative, anti-LGBTQ, super anti-choice. Importantly, they want to absolutely gut the regulatory state because where their money comes from is not primarily people who care about those social issues. The money comes from polluters. That is what is going on here. She comes from the Federalist Society. You know, before Trump, nobody would have ever thought to provide a list to the public of the potential Supreme Court Justices that you would nominate. That was unheard of. You are supposed to keep your powder dry and try to be down the middle, if you can. Obviously, a Democratic President leans left, and a Republican President leans right, but that is why you got kind of a mix of ideologies, even though some of these people who, you know, after 20 years on the bench, you can't even remember whether they were appointed by a Democrat or Republican. But what has happened in the last 10 years or so is you can definitely tell who has been appointed by a Democrat and you can definitely tell who has been appointed by a Republican. All of these votes are turning into partyline votes in the districts and the circuits and now on the Supreme Court. Nobody is really making up their own minds. She came from the Federalist Society. Look, the Federalist Society doesn't appear to be doing anything illegal. They are just working the system. It is worth asking whether this is the way we want to have our Supreme Court Justices selected. You have a whole political party who preapproves anybody on a list without even knowing who is in it but also without even having a hearing. We do know how she is going to rule, unfortunately. The reason the Federalist Society pushed so hard for Judge Barrett is that she is an originalist. This means that she pledges to interpret the Constitution as she determines the Framers and the public intended at the time that the Constitution was written nearly two and a half centuries ago. To do this, she looks at world as it existed in 1787 and the values from that time. We are talking about a time when full citizenship was limited to White men, when most Black people were enslaved and considered property, when women had no rights protections, being gay was punishable by the death penalty. That is what she looks to in deciding how our country should be governed today. The simple fact is, you cannot be an originalist and believe in full equality. You cannot look only at the Framers' intent and believe in protecting the rights of women, people of color, Native-Americans, and the LGBTQ community. The two legal views are incompatible. Striving for our Nation's founding promise of true equality for all or equal justice under the law requires leaving our outdated prejudices behind. The beauty of our country is that we have the capacity to improve, to change each generation since our founding has made this place better. Originalism ignores all of that. Precedent is the reason schools are integrated. It is why anybody can marry the person that they love. It is why 20 million more people have healthcare. It is why women have the right to access reproductive freedom. It is why we have cleaner air and cleaner water. Those principles are not written into the Constitution, but the progress we have made in statutory law and in jurisprudence is protected over time. Originalists are willing to throw those things out. That is why originalism is so dangerous in a courtroom, especially the Supreme Court in 2020. We should be very wary of those who wish to take us back to a place where only some are free. As we struggle to perfect our Union, her nomination cements a conservative majority and puts a lot of our hard-fought progress in jeopardy. The Court will hear cases that test our values and test our commitment to equality. Subscribing to originalism is just another way to say that Judge Barrett will prioritize a handful of elite and wealthy Americans. Just like other jurists handpicked by the Federalist Society, it is all but guaranteed that she will decide in favor of corporate power and the wealthy most of the time. What we need is a Justice who is committed to protecting and upholding the rights of every American, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationalorigin, or sexual orientation. While Judge Barrett has been evasive in the hearings, her record is not unclear. I would like to walk through her record on civil rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, and climate. Let's start with civil and voting rights. Being named a Supreme Court Justice is an honor. A Justice should be a defender of human rights and civil rights, and a Justice must have an unbreakable commitment to fight for what is right and to lead the pursuit in making America more free. Judge Barrett has written that the entire 14th Amendment is ``possibly illegitimate.'' Yes, you heard that correctly. Judge Barrett questions the legitimacy of the very amendment that is the cornerstone of civil rights and equal protections in this country. The 14th Amendment was proposed during Reconstruction following the Civil War when the Union was deciding how to readmit Confederate States and restore their representation to Congress. One of the conditions for allowing them to reenter was passing and ratifying the 14th Amendment. The theory that she uses to challenge its validity is that the South was strong-armed in the supporting it, so the amendment never truly earned the support of the American people. That is crazy. There is nothing in the law to justify this position, and there never has been. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls this a White supremacist myth, perpetrated by Confederate sympathizers, the KKK, and other extreme rightwing groups. It is unfathomable to think that anybody in the year 2020 would be opposed to the simple concept that every American should be treated equally under the law. It really should disqualify Judge Barrett from the Supreme Court seat. At the same time, she has repeatedly overlooked discrimination in the workplace, concluding that separate can be equal. I mean, this is basic civics. I have two teenagers. This is the stuff we learned as bedrock foundational American history in civics. She is saying separate can be equal. I read this opinion. She said that using a racial slur in the workplace does not necessarily create a hostile work environment for the object of that slur. Try to fathom a situation where someone is calling someone a racial epithet but that is not hostility in the workplace. Her brain is big; I don't doubt it. But it is a pretty extraordinary stretch of a pretty extraordinary brain to try to assert that saying something racist to someone in the workplace is not a hostile act. It is definitely a hostile act. Maybe I just lack the educational attainment to understand how you get so smart that you lose all of your common sense and all of your decency and all of your humanity and you forget what you learned in 6th grade and 9th grade and 12th grade. During the hearing this week, Judge Barrett declined to agree that intimidating voters is illegal. I mean, this isn't a matter of interpreting constitutional law. This is Federal statute. She also refused to say whether she believes voter discrimination still exists. She refused to say whether voter discrimination still exists. It is like worse than I thought. Right? I am a Democrat. I didn't want anybody who didn't share Ruth Bader Ginsburg's views to replace her. But I am alarmed. And because of her extraordinary skill and because she comported herself well in the hearings, I don't think people really know how dangerous this is about to be. I think people are in for a rude awakening in terms of what this Court is about to do to roll back the clock on some stuff that we pretty much think we already agree on: gay rights, 70 percent of the public, like we have moved on; reproductive choice, 70 percent of the public, we moved on; the Affordable Care Act, after 15 years or whatever it is, 12 years of fighting about it, we kind of moved on. Now, you have Republicans making ads saying, I am going to protect your preexisting conditions. The American public has a consensus on a number of things. I think all of these people are prepared to undo that consensus. Here is what is so alarming--maybe it was this morning or maybe it was yesterday--the majority leader, Leader McConnell, after giving, to me, what was a weird speech--not substantively. I knew the speech he was going to give, essentially blaming Harry Reid for everything. Fine. I mean, I disagree with it, but I don't begrudge him a partisan speech in this context. But the way he did it, he turned his back--I mean, you are supposed to address the Chair, right? Some of us move around. But this was weird. He turned his back on the Democratic side of the aisle and just stared at his caucus and gave them a pep talk and said--I am going to paraphrase right now, but it was basically, The stuff we have done over the last 4 years is going to be undone in legislative terms as a result of coming elections, but what we are doing on the Court will last a lifetime. I get the point that he is making because he is just measuring his power. But everybody should listen to what he is saying. He is promising that it doesn't matter what we do over here because they are going to undo it over there. This man who presents himself as an institutionalist is deciding that the U.S. Senate's role is to just stack the judiciary and stop legislating, and that is alarming. I want to make one sort of final point. I really worry about the Senate itself. I was so thrilled to be here. The circumstances of my entering the Senate were tragic, actually, because of the death of my predecessor. But I am not going to lie--I was being sent to the world's greatest deliberative body. It is like a promising high school basketball player, like being the 12th man on the LA Lakers. That is how I felt. I walked in, and I thought: This is the big show. This is the place where we solve America's problems. I have seen the inexorable destruction of this institution because of a lack of restraint on the Republican side. I actually would love it if the blame were equally shared. It would be easier for me because I don't want to sound like that. I don't get anything out of that. I imagined these groups of people--and it wasn't always the moderates right in the middle. Nowadays, the only people who are kind of cutting deals in the middle are the moderates. But back in the day, it was Teddy Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. It was Danny Inouye and Ted Stevens. And now there is not even a desire to do big things here. There is a total lack of ambition to solve America's problems here, and there is a total lack of restraint when it comes to the exercise of power. So the old Senate is gone. The old Senate is gone, and this body has reinvented itself over and over and over again, and it is going to have to do it again. But that old Senate where you could pour a scotch after yelling at each other on the floor, it is gone. I can't tell you the number of times I have invited my Republican colleagues to come down to the floor and have a debate. We don't even argue anymore. They go on FOX News. We go on MSNBC. We line up. We smash helmets. They win 52 to 48. So what is happening in this time period, which is to say in the next 24 hours, is sort of the culmination of Leader McConnell's philosophy about what this place should do, which is, we do judges. We don't do big things, we don't even try to do big things, and we never fail to maximally use our power. That is a different model for our legislature. Frankly, it is how a lot of legislatures work; it is just not the way this place used to work. But if that is the model, then Democrats are going to have to wrap their minds around what has happened because we can't be the only ones showing any restraint, right, because that is just a recipe for getting rolled and rolled and rolled, and that is a recipe for entrenching minority rule. I understand that the structure of the Senate is what it is. It is enshrined in the Constitution, and far be it from me to argue that small States shouldn't get two Senators. Small States should get two Senators. Whether you have 1.5 million people or 50 million people in your State, you should get two Senators. I am for that. But the way this is starting to work is that elected representatives who collectively have gathered 10 million, maybe 12 million, maybe by the year 2030, 30 million fewer votes than the minority party, are going to stack the judiciary and entrench minority rule. So something has to give. Yes, I know there are elections that can resolve this, and sometimes when thingsfeel stuck, maybe they are not as stuck as they feel, but the shoe is going to be on the other foot. As my good friend Claire McCaskill, the former Senator from Missouri, says, you know, the door swings both ways in Washington. So I just think it is important for every Member of this body to understand that the door swings both ways in Washington. If we are going to rebuild this institution and rebuild the trust that the public has in their elected representatives and the judiciary and public leaders, then we are going to have to be trustworthy with each other. I feel betrayed. One of the most pleasurable aspects of working in this place when I first got here, coming from an almost entirely Democratic State, was my ability to work with Republicans. It was a unique professional challenge for me. I am looking at the Presiding Officer, and we did some pretty good work together, and it was a pleasure. That was fun, and that was the way this place should work. I worry about how frayed those relationships are, and I worry about the fact that there is this kind of principle that all is fair in love and war. These guys are about to do something even worse, so you might as well punch them in the mouth preemptively, and the kind of rah-rah speeches that I believe go on in the Republican conference characterizing us as promising to do unusually aggressive things, and therefore they might as well get it over with in advance. By the way, Harry Reid did X, Y, and Z, and what about Robert Byrd? And they get told a story about how awful we are, and then that justifies their breaking their bond with us. I understand that a lot of what happens here is a result of polarization across the country--I would argue asymmetric polarization--but people matter, relationships matter, and trust matters. I have never felt so clear that we as Members have been betrayed; that the arguments that were made in favor of holding up Merrick Garland were BS, and we have a long way to go to rebuild this institution. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6518-2 | null | 1,562 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, the Senate used to be a body that valued bipartisanship, deliberation, and compromise--a body that balanced the demands for debate with the demands for action. But that was in the past. The Senate no longer is the body that examines, considers, and protects our democracy. The Senate I see now is ruled by partisanship and uncompromising ideology, and in their rush to jam through a divisive nomination days before the election and before the American people get a chance to have their say, the majority leader and the Republican Party are inflicting procedural violence on the Senate itself and the American people to achieve their ideological objectives. In fact, many Republicans bragged that they had the votes to confirm the President's nominee before the nominee was chosen. The world's greatest deliberative body, with the constitutional responsibility for advice and consent and a special responsibility to advise and consent on the highest Court in the land, decided that they were A-OK with whatever Donald Trump decided, that their role in advice and consent was to basically agree in advance and to abdicate their role. Now, we are not a parliamentary system. We are a separate, coequal branch of the government, and we are supposed to have our own views. The Federalist Society is not a branch of government. Donald Trump should not run the U.S. Senate. Nobody outside of this Chamber should be in charge of us, and to announce that you are for a nominee, sight unseen, is an abdication of your role. Why would you even run for this job? Why would you even run for this job? Just go be the executive vice president of the Federalist Society. If you don't believe in the importance of the legislative branch, don't be a legislator. We are less than 2 weeks away from the most consequential decision, election, of our lifetimes. Almost 60 million Americans have already voted. And there are legitimate concerns around an election dispute, and that is because of the President. The President has proposed postponing the election. He has threatened to challenge the results if he doesn't win. He has called it rigged in advance. He has refused repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. He has openly admitted that one of the reasons that he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee--one of the reasons he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee--is, in case there is an election dispute, to referee which votes get counted. What is funny about this--not funny like hilarious funny but kind of weird funny--is that that is the kind of thing that, if I said that you are just putting this person in to referee an election dispute, I would have expected the people on the other side to say: How dare you make that accusation? But, to the contrary, the junior Senator from Texas actually said that is the reason they have to hurry: We had better get her in so she can rule against counting votes--in wherever the Democrats are counting their votes. That is what he said. This isn't a partisan accusation. It is literally what Ted Cruz said. The President of the United States expects his nominee, Judge Barrett, to be Justice Barrett tomorrow night, to assist him with ensuring reelection, if necessary. These statements by the President should alarm every Member of this body--Democrat and Republican. But, actually, it didn't alarm certain Members. They found that to be a justification for hurrying. Disturbingly, in an exchange with the Senator from New Jersey, Judge Barrett would not say that President Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. When the Senator from California asked her if the Constitution gives the President the power to delay an election, Judge Barrett said that she didn't want to give off-the-cuff answers, even though the Constitution does not, in fact, give the President that power. This is part of a pattern. I will take you through some of this stuff. Anytime there is a live controversy--and by ``live controversy'' it is, basically, anytime Donald Trump says something--she is unwilling to cross him. She is unwilling to cross him. Our judges are supposed to be independent and unbiased interpreters of the law. That means Judge Barrett should know what the law says and how to apply it, especially when the President threatens to break it in order to hold onto political power. But she dodged these important questions and refused to defend democracy. I have real doubts about her ability to serve our Nation impartially, especially in the case of an election dispute. There was a 4-4 decision which allowed a lower court decision to be upheld regarding--it is an election dispute in Pennsylvania. I won't get into great detail. The litigants now, because it was 4-4, are going right back to the Supreme Court, figuring that Amy Coney Barrett will rule for them, in the middle of this election. This isn't some theoretical, wild-eyed, internet-driven paranoia. This is happening. They went back to the Supreme Court to say: How about now? And I would be a little surprised if they don't rule 5-4 on behalf of Republicans who want to restrict the vote. In moving forward with the confirmation, the Senate Republicans and the majority leader are going against the precedent they set 4 years ago. Look, I understand. I am reasonably good at politics. I know that hypocrisy abounds. I understand that hypocrisy abounds. I understand that, if we take our case to the American voter and say, ``They are hypocrites,'' the American voters are going to shrug their shoulders and say, ``You're all hypocrites.'' I get that. But I am a little bit old-school in the following way: I come from a legislature, and I believe your word should be your bond. Otherwise, this kind of place won't work. When Lindsey Graham said, ``Use my words against me,'' I actually believed him. I have worked with Lindsey before. I have had dinner with Lindsey. I sort of personally like him. That probably gets me in tons of trouble politically. But I just guess I thought that, if I am coming from the Hawaii Legislature, where your word is your bond, that is the most foundational rule of politics. I remember when I was first elected in 1998. The National Conference of State Legislatures, this training body for legislators, used to issue cassette tapes about how to be an effective legislator. And I remember this. The first tape, I would stick it in my Nissan truck, and I listened to it every day--Roz Baker. Your word is your bond. That is the most important coin of the realm. And I get that. Look, most of the people in this body are pretty smart. So they are going to use their ample brains to justify their new position. But let's be clear: This is the most rank hypocrisy I have ever seen in anything politically, and it is one of the most important things that I have ever seen. It is not a trivial thing that you held up Merrick Garland. Now, do I go around saying that on the cable shows and whatever? No, because I know, outside of this body, nobody cares. Inside of this body, we are supposed to careabout stuff like that. Inside of this body, your word is supposed to count for something. It is not supposed to be about the maximal use of power in tricking each other and tricking the public. Here is what Mitch McConnell said about Merrick Garland: ``The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled.'' The Senator from South Carolina said: I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ``Lindsey Graham said let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination,'' and you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right. The Senator from Texas said: ``The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice.'' It is not just my Republican colleagues who have reversed their position. It is Judge Barrett herself who actually warned against making changes on the Court in an election year. She said: We're talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the Court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the Court. It's not a lateral move. You know what else isn't a lateral move? Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett. Our Democratic institutions depend on the trust of the American people, and we cannot find that bond of trust if we don't have it amongst ourselves. It is worth mentioning here that Senate Republicans are also choosing to confirm Judge Barrett instead of addressing the pandemic. You know, that is another thing that sort of sounds hypocritical because maybe I am exaggerating it. But, no, that is actually true. Mitch McConnell is very clear. He didn't want a COVID bill on the floor because he is worried that it would push this thing past the election. So it is really clear, right? He said--I think it was in May--he didn't feel a sense of urgency. He basically sat back and let Mnuchin and Pelosi negotiate, even though whatever they come to will be blown up here because he doesn't have the votes for hardly anything. But let's be really clear. His priority is judges. His priority is always judges. It is like a joke here. We fly in. A lot of us fly out on the weekends. When we arrive, we say, What is on deck for this week? And everyone says: Nominations. You have a circuit judge. We have a district judge. We have another district judge. How many is it? Oh, it is five judges this week, no legislating going on. That has become the way this place operates. We are not the world's greatest deliberative body. We are just like a little factory that approves Federal judges, and that is how Mitch McConnell wants it. It is especially egregious when so many people need so much help. This is a world historic event. You have 220,000 people dead. You have about 1,000 people dying a day. You have businesses closing forever. You have economic extinction all over the country--red States, blue States, rural areas, urban areas, suburban areas. The highest priority for Mitch McConnell is stacking the courts. That is really the game for them. It is important to know who Judge Barrett is. I want to be really clear--she seems super pleasant. She is obviously incredibly accomplished academically. None of this is personal for me. But she was groomed by this organization called the Federalist Society. We need to understand who they are and what they do. They basically saw that they had an opportunity to start to identify and groom and place young ideologues. Those are the two key words. You have to be young, and you have to be pretty ideological, and then you are in the Federalist Society, and then you can get a district court job. Maybe you are going to be a prosecutor first, or maybe you are going to be a district court judge, or maybe you are going to run for office. But the whole deal is, this is their farm team. The Federalist Society has very specific views--socially conservative, anti-LGBTQ, super anti-choice. Importantly, they want to absolutely gut the regulatory state because where their money comes from is not primarily people who care about those social issues. The money comes from polluters. That is what is going on here. She comes from the Federalist Society. You know, before Trump, nobody would have ever thought to provide a list to the public of the potential Supreme Court Justices that you would nominate. That was unheard of. You are supposed to keep your powder dry and try to be down the middle, if you can. Obviously, a Democratic President leans left, and a Republican President leans right, but that is why you got kind of a mix of ideologies, even though some of these people who, you know, after 20 years on the bench, you can't even remember whether they were appointed by a Democrat or Republican. But what has happened in the last 10 years or so is you can definitely tell who has been appointed by a Democrat and you can definitely tell who has been appointed by a Republican. All of these votes are turning into partyline votes in the districts and the circuits and now on the Supreme Court. Nobody is really making up their own minds. She came from the Federalist Society. Look, the Federalist Society doesn't appear to be doing anything illegal. They are just working the system. It is worth asking whether this is the way we want to have our Supreme Court Justices selected. You have a whole political party who preapproves anybody on a list without even knowing who is in it but also without even having a hearing. We do know how she is going to rule, unfortunately. The reason the Federalist Society pushed so hard for Judge Barrett is that she is an originalist. This means that she pledges to interpret the Constitution as she determines the Framers and the public intended at the time that the Constitution was written nearly two and a half centuries ago. To do this, she looks at world as it existed in 1787 and the values from that time. We are talking about a time when full citizenship was limited to White men, when most Black people were enslaved and considered property, when women had no rights protections, being gay was punishable by the death penalty. That is what she looks to in deciding how our country should be governed today. The simple fact is, you cannot be an originalist and believe in full equality. You cannot look only at the Framers' intent and believe in protecting the rights of women, people of color, Native-Americans, and the LGBTQ community. The two legal views are incompatible. Striving for our Nation's founding promise of true equality for all or equal justice under the law requires leaving our outdated prejudices behind. The beauty of our country is that we have the capacity to improve, to change each generation since our founding has made this place better. Originalism ignores all of that. Precedent is the reason schools are integrated. It is why anybody can marry the person that they love. It is why 20 million more people have healthcare. It is why women have the right to access reproductive freedom. It is why we have cleaner air and cleaner water. Those principles are not written into the Constitution, but the progress we have made in statutory law and in jurisprudence is protected over time. Originalists are willing to throw those things out. That is why originalism is so dangerous in a courtroom, especially the Supreme Court in 2020. We should be very wary of those who wish to take us back to a place where only some are free. As we struggle to perfect our Union, her nomination cements a conservative majority and puts a lot of our hard-fought progress in jeopardy. The Court will hear cases that test our values and test our commitment to equality. Subscribing to originalism is just another way to say that Judge Barrett will prioritize a handful of elite and wealthy Americans. Just like other jurists handpicked by the Federalist Society, it is all but guaranteed that she will decide in favor of corporate power and the wealthy most of the time. What we need is a Justice who is committed to protecting and upholding the rights of every American, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationalorigin, or sexual orientation. While Judge Barrett has been evasive in the hearings, her record is not unclear. I would like to walk through her record on civil rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, and climate. Let's start with civil and voting rights. Being named a Supreme Court Justice is an honor. A Justice should be a defender of human rights and civil rights, and a Justice must have an unbreakable commitment to fight for what is right and to lead the pursuit in making America more free. Judge Barrett has written that the entire 14th Amendment is ``possibly illegitimate.'' Yes, you heard that correctly. Judge Barrett questions the legitimacy of the very amendment that is the cornerstone of civil rights and equal protections in this country. The 14th Amendment was proposed during Reconstruction following the Civil War when the Union was deciding how to readmit Confederate States and restore their representation to Congress. One of the conditions for allowing them to reenter was passing and ratifying the 14th Amendment. The theory that she uses to challenge its validity is that the South was strong-armed in the supporting it, so the amendment never truly earned the support of the American people. That is crazy. There is nothing in the law to justify this position, and there never has been. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls this a White supremacist myth, perpetrated by Confederate sympathizers, the KKK, and other extreme rightwing groups. It is unfathomable to think that anybody in the year 2020 would be opposed to the simple concept that every American should be treated equally under the law. It really should disqualify Judge Barrett from the Supreme Court seat. At the same time, she has repeatedly overlooked discrimination in the workplace, concluding that separate can be equal. I mean, this is basic civics. I have two teenagers. This is the stuff we learned as bedrock foundational American history in civics. She is saying separate can be equal. I read this opinion. She said that using a racial slur in the workplace does not necessarily create a hostile work environment for the object of that slur. Try to fathom a situation where someone is calling someone a racial epithet but that is not hostility in the workplace. Her brain is big; I don't doubt it. But it is a pretty extraordinary stretch of a pretty extraordinary brain to try to assert that saying something racist to someone in the workplace is not a hostile act. It is definitely a hostile act. Maybe I just lack the educational attainment to understand how you get so smart that you lose all of your common sense and all of your decency and all of your humanity and you forget what you learned in 6th grade and 9th grade and 12th grade. During the hearing this week, Judge Barrett declined to agree that intimidating voters is illegal. I mean, this isn't a matter of interpreting constitutional law. This is Federal statute. She also refused to say whether she believes voter discrimination still exists. She refused to say whether voter discrimination still exists. It is like worse than I thought. Right? I am a Democrat. I didn't want anybody who didn't share Ruth Bader Ginsburg's views to replace her. But I am alarmed. And because of her extraordinary skill and because she comported herself well in the hearings, I don't think people really know how dangerous this is about to be. I think people are in for a rude awakening in terms of what this Court is about to do to roll back the clock on some stuff that we pretty much think we already agree on: gay rights, 70 percent of the public, like we have moved on; reproductive choice, 70 percent of the public, we moved on; the Affordable Care Act, after 15 years or whatever it is, 12 years of fighting about it, we kind of moved on. Now, you have Republicans making ads saying, I am going to protect your preexisting conditions. The American public has a consensus on a number of things. I think all of these people are prepared to undo that consensus. Here is what is so alarming--maybe it was this morning or maybe it was yesterday--the majority leader, Leader McConnell, after giving, to me, what was a weird speech--not substantively. I knew the speech he was going to give, essentially blaming Harry Reid for everything. Fine. I mean, I disagree with it, but I don't begrudge him a partisan speech in this context. But the way he did it, he turned his back--I mean, you are supposed to address the Chair, right? Some of us move around. But this was weird. He turned his back on the Democratic side of the aisle and just stared at his caucus and gave them a pep talk and said--I am going to paraphrase right now, but it was basically, The stuff we have done over the last 4 years is going to be undone in legislative terms as a result of coming elections, but what we are doing on the Court will last a lifetime. I get the point that he is making because he is just measuring his power. But everybody should listen to what he is saying. He is promising that it doesn't matter what we do over here because they are going to undo it over there. This man who presents himself as an institutionalist is deciding that the U.S. Senate's role is to just stack the judiciary and stop legislating, and that is alarming. I want to make one sort of final point. I really worry about the Senate itself. I was so thrilled to be here. The circumstances of my entering the Senate were tragic, actually, because of the death of my predecessor. But I am not going to lie--I was being sent to the world's greatest deliberative body. It is like a promising high school basketball player, like being the 12th man on the LA Lakers. That is how I felt. I walked in, and I thought: This is the big show. This is the place where we solve America's problems. I have seen the inexorable destruction of this institution because of a lack of restraint on the Republican side. I actually would love it if the blame were equally shared. It would be easier for me because I don't want to sound like that. I don't get anything out of that. I imagined these groups of people--and it wasn't always the moderates right in the middle. Nowadays, the only people who are kind of cutting deals in the middle are the moderates. But back in the day, it was Teddy Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. It was Danny Inouye and Ted Stevens. And now there is not even a desire to do big things here. There is a total lack of ambition to solve America's problems here, and there is a total lack of restraint when it comes to the exercise of power. So the old Senate is gone. The old Senate is gone, and this body has reinvented itself over and over and over again, and it is going to have to do it again. But that old Senate where you could pour a scotch after yelling at each other on the floor, it is gone. I can't tell you the number of times I have invited my Republican colleagues to come down to the floor and have a debate. We don't even argue anymore. They go on FOX News. We go on MSNBC. We line up. We smash helmets. They win 52 to 48. So what is happening in this time period, which is to say in the next 24 hours, is sort of the culmination of Leader McConnell's philosophy about what this place should do, which is, we do judges. We don't do big things, we don't even try to do big things, and we never fail to maximally use our power. That is a different model for our legislature. Frankly, it is how a lot of legislatures work; it is just not the way this place used to work. But if that is the model, then Democrats are going to have to wrap their minds around what has happened because we can't be the only ones showing any restraint, right, because that is just a recipe for getting rolled and rolled and rolled, and that is a recipe for entrenching minority rule. I understand that the structure of the Senate is what it is. It is enshrined in the Constitution, and far be it from me to argue that small States shouldn't get two Senators. Small States should get two Senators. Whether you have 1.5 million people or 50 million people in your State, you should get two Senators. I am for that. But the way this is starting to work is that elected representatives who collectively have gathered 10 million, maybe 12 million, maybe by the year 2030, 30 million fewer votes than the minority party, are going to stack the judiciary and entrench minority rule. So something has to give. Yes, I know there are elections that can resolve this, and sometimes when thingsfeel stuck, maybe they are not as stuck as they feel, but the shoe is going to be on the other foot. As my good friend Claire McCaskill, the former Senator from Missouri, says, you know, the door swings both ways in Washington. So I just think it is important for every Member of this body to understand that the door swings both ways in Washington. If we are going to rebuild this institution and rebuild the trust that the public has in their elected representatives and the judiciary and public leaders, then we are going to have to be trustworthy with each other. I feel betrayed. One of the most pleasurable aspects of working in this place when I first got here, coming from an almost entirely Democratic State, was my ability to work with Republicans. It was a unique professional challenge for me. I am looking at the Presiding Officer, and we did some pretty good work together, and it was a pleasure. That was fun, and that was the way this place should work. I worry about how frayed those relationships are, and I worry about the fact that there is this kind of principle that all is fair in love and war. These guys are about to do something even worse, so you might as well punch them in the mouth preemptively, and the kind of rah-rah speeches that I believe go on in the Republican conference characterizing us as promising to do unusually aggressive things, and therefore they might as well get it over with in advance. By the way, Harry Reid did X, Y, and Z, and what about Robert Byrd? And they get told a story about how awful we are, and then that justifies their breaking their bond with us. I understand that a lot of what happens here is a result of polarization across the country--I would argue asymmetric polarization--but people matter, relationships matter, and trust matters. I have never felt so clear that we as Members have been betrayed; that the arguments that were made in favor of holding up Merrick Garland were BS, and we have a long way to go to rebuild this institution. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6518-2 | null | 1,563 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett Mr. President, the Senate used to be a body that valued bipartisanship, deliberation, and compromise--a body that balanced the demands for debate with the demands for action. But that was in the past. The Senate no longer is the body that examines, considers, and protects our democracy. The Senate I see now is ruled by partisanship and uncompromising ideology, and in their rush to jam through a divisive nomination days before the election and before the American people get a chance to have their say, the majority leader and the Republican Party are inflicting procedural violence on the Senate itself and the American people to achieve their ideological objectives. In fact, many Republicans bragged that they had the votes to confirm the President's nominee before the nominee was chosen. The world's greatest deliberative body, with the constitutional responsibility for advice and consent and a special responsibility to advise and consent on the highest Court in the land, decided that they were A-OK with whatever Donald Trump decided, that their role in advice and consent was to basically agree in advance and to abdicate their role. Now, we are not a parliamentary system. We are a separate, coequal branch of the government, and we are supposed to have our own views. The Federalist Society is not a branch of government. Donald Trump should not run the U.S. Senate. Nobody outside of this Chamber should be in charge of us, and to announce that you are for a nominee, sight unseen, is an abdication of your role. Why would you even run for this job? Why would you even run for this job? Just go be the executive vice president of the Federalist Society. If you don't believe in the importance of the legislative branch, don't be a legislator. We are less than 2 weeks away from the most consequential decision, election, of our lifetimes. Almost 60 million Americans have already voted. And there are legitimate concerns around an election dispute, and that is because of the President. The President has proposed postponing the election. He has threatened to challenge the results if he doesn't win. He has called it rigged in advance. He has refused repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. He has openly admitted that one of the reasons that he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee--one of the reasons he wanted to hurry in confirming this nominee--is, in case there is an election dispute, to referee which votes get counted. What is funny about this--not funny like hilarious funny but kind of weird funny--is that that is the kind of thing that, if I said that you are just putting this person in to referee an election dispute, I would have expected the people on the other side to say: How dare you make that accusation? But, to the contrary, the junior Senator from Texas actually said that is the reason they have to hurry: We had better get her in so she can rule against counting votes--in wherever the Democrats are counting their votes. That is what he said. This isn't a partisan accusation. It is literally what Ted Cruz said. The President of the United States expects his nominee, Judge Barrett, to be Justice Barrett tomorrow night, to assist him with ensuring reelection, if necessary. These statements by the President should alarm every Member of this body--Democrat and Republican. But, actually, it didn't alarm certain Members. They found that to be a justification for hurrying. Disturbingly, in an exchange with the Senator from New Jersey, Judge Barrett would not say that President Trump should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. When the Senator from California asked her if the Constitution gives the President the power to delay an election, Judge Barrett said that she didn't want to give off-the-cuff answers, even though the Constitution does not, in fact, give the President that power. This is part of a pattern. I will take you through some of this stuff. Anytime there is a live controversy--and by ``live controversy'' it is, basically, anytime Donald Trump says something--she is unwilling to cross him. She is unwilling to cross him. Our judges are supposed to be independent and unbiased interpreters of the law. That means Judge Barrett should know what the law says and how to apply it, especially when the President threatens to break it in order to hold onto political power. But she dodged these important questions and refused to defend democracy. I have real doubts about her ability to serve our Nation impartially, especially in the case of an election dispute. There was a 4-4 decision which allowed a lower court decision to be upheld regarding--it is an election dispute in Pennsylvania. I won't get into great detail. The litigants now, because it was 4-4, are going right back to the Supreme Court, figuring that Amy Coney Barrett will rule for them, in the middle of this election. This isn't some theoretical, wild-eyed, internet-driven paranoia. This is happening. They went back to the Supreme Court to say: How about now? And I would be a little surprised if they don't rule 5-4 on behalf of Republicans who want to restrict the vote. In moving forward with the confirmation, the Senate Republicans and the majority leader are going against the precedent they set 4 years ago. Look, I understand. I am reasonably good at politics. I know that hypocrisy abounds. I understand that hypocrisy abounds. I understand that, if we take our case to the American voter and say, ``They are hypocrites,'' the American voters are going to shrug their shoulders and say, ``You're all hypocrites.'' I get that. But I am a little bit old-school in the following way: I come from a legislature, and I believe your word should be your bond. Otherwise, this kind of place won't work. When Lindsey Graham said, ``Use my words against me,'' I actually believed him. I have worked with Lindsey before. I have had dinner with Lindsey. I sort of personally like him. That probably gets me in tons of trouble politically. But I just guess I thought that, if I am coming from the Hawaii Legislature, where your word is your bond, that is the most foundational rule of politics. I remember when I was first elected in 1998. The National Conference of State Legislatures, this training body for legislators, used to issue cassette tapes about how to be an effective legislator. And I remember this. The first tape, I would stick it in my Nissan truck, and I listened to it every day--Roz Baker. Your word is your bond. That is the most important coin of the realm. And I get that. Look, most of the people in this body are pretty smart. So they are going to use their ample brains to justify their new position. But let's be clear: This is the most rank hypocrisy I have ever seen in anything politically, and it is one of the most important things that I have ever seen. It is not a trivial thing that you held up Merrick Garland. Now, do I go around saying that on the cable shows and whatever? No, because I know, outside of this body, nobody cares. Inside of this body, we are supposed to careabout stuff like that. Inside of this body, your word is supposed to count for something. It is not supposed to be about the maximal use of power in tricking each other and tricking the public. Here is what Mitch McConnell said about Merrick Garland: ``The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled.'' The Senator from South Carolina said: I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ``Lindsey Graham said let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination,'' and you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right. The Senator from Texas said: ``The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice.'' It is not just my Republican colleagues who have reversed their position. It is Judge Barrett herself who actually warned against making changes on the Court in an election year. She said: We're talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the Court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the Court. It's not a lateral move. You know what else isn't a lateral move? Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett. Our Democratic institutions depend on the trust of the American people, and we cannot find that bond of trust if we don't have it amongst ourselves. It is worth mentioning here that Senate Republicans are also choosing to confirm Judge Barrett instead of addressing the pandemic. You know, that is another thing that sort of sounds hypocritical because maybe I am exaggerating it. But, no, that is actually true. Mitch McConnell is very clear. He didn't want a COVID bill on the floor because he is worried that it would push this thing past the election. So it is really clear, right? He said--I think it was in May--he didn't feel a sense of urgency. He basically sat back and let Mnuchin and Pelosi negotiate, even though whatever they come to will be blown up here because he doesn't have the votes for hardly anything. But let's be really clear. His priority is judges. His priority is always judges. It is like a joke here. We fly in. A lot of us fly out on the weekends. When we arrive, we say, What is on deck for this week? And everyone says: Nominations. You have a circuit judge. We have a district judge. We have another district judge. How many is it? Oh, it is five judges this week, no legislating going on. That has become the way this place operates. We are not the world's greatest deliberative body. We are just like a little factory that approves Federal judges, and that is how Mitch McConnell wants it. It is especially egregious when so many people need so much help. This is a world historic event. You have 220,000 people dead. You have about 1,000 people dying a day. You have businesses closing forever. You have economic extinction all over the country--red States, blue States, rural areas, urban areas, suburban areas. The highest priority for Mitch McConnell is stacking the courts. That is really the game for them. It is important to know who Judge Barrett is. I want to be really clear--she seems super pleasant. She is obviously incredibly accomplished academically. None of this is personal for me. But she was groomed by this organization called the Federalist Society. We need to understand who they are and what they do. They basically saw that they had an opportunity to start to identify and groom and place young ideologues. Those are the two key words. You have to be young, and you have to be pretty ideological, and then you are in the Federalist Society, and then you can get a district court job. Maybe you are going to be a prosecutor first, or maybe you are going to be a district court judge, or maybe you are going to run for office. But the whole deal is, this is their farm team. The Federalist Society has very specific views--socially conservative, anti-LGBTQ, super anti-choice. Importantly, they want to absolutely gut the regulatory state because where their money comes from is not primarily people who care about those social issues. The money comes from polluters. That is what is going on here. She comes from the Federalist Society. You know, before Trump, nobody would have ever thought to provide a list to the public of the potential Supreme Court Justices that you would nominate. That was unheard of. You are supposed to keep your powder dry and try to be down the middle, if you can. Obviously, a Democratic President leans left, and a Republican President leans right, but that is why you got kind of a mix of ideologies, even though some of these people who, you know, after 20 years on the bench, you can't even remember whether they were appointed by a Democrat or Republican. But what has happened in the last 10 years or so is you can definitely tell who has been appointed by a Democrat and you can definitely tell who has been appointed by a Republican. All of these votes are turning into partyline votes in the districts and the circuits and now on the Supreme Court. Nobody is really making up their own minds. She came from the Federalist Society. Look, the Federalist Society doesn't appear to be doing anything illegal. They are just working the system. It is worth asking whether this is the way we want to have our Supreme Court Justices selected. You have a whole political party who preapproves anybody on a list without even knowing who is in it but also without even having a hearing. We do know how she is going to rule, unfortunately. The reason the Federalist Society pushed so hard for Judge Barrett is that she is an originalist. This means that she pledges to interpret the Constitution as she determines the Framers and the public intended at the time that the Constitution was written nearly two and a half centuries ago. To do this, she looks at world as it existed in 1787 and the values from that time. We are talking about a time when full citizenship was limited to White men, when most Black people were enslaved and considered property, when women had no rights protections, being gay was punishable by the death penalty. That is what she looks to in deciding how our country should be governed today. The simple fact is, you cannot be an originalist and believe in full equality. You cannot look only at the Framers' intent and believe in protecting the rights of women, people of color, Native-Americans, and the LGBTQ community. The two legal views are incompatible. Striving for our Nation's founding promise of true equality for all or equal justice under the law requires leaving our outdated prejudices behind. The beauty of our country is that we have the capacity to improve, to change each generation since our founding has made this place better. Originalism ignores all of that. Precedent is the reason schools are integrated. It is why anybody can marry the person that they love. It is why 20 million more people have healthcare. It is why women have the right to access reproductive freedom. It is why we have cleaner air and cleaner water. Those principles are not written into the Constitution, but the progress we have made in statutory law and in jurisprudence is protected over time. Originalists are willing to throw those things out. That is why originalism is so dangerous in a courtroom, especially the Supreme Court in 2020. We should be very wary of those who wish to take us back to a place where only some are free. As we struggle to perfect our Union, her nomination cements a conservative majority and puts a lot of our hard-fought progress in jeopardy. The Court will hear cases that test our values and test our commitment to equality. Subscribing to originalism is just another way to say that Judge Barrett will prioritize a handful of elite and wealthy Americans. Just like other jurists handpicked by the Federalist Society, it is all but guaranteed that she will decide in favor of corporate power and the wealthy most of the time. What we need is a Justice who is committed to protecting and upholding the rights of every American, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationalorigin, or sexual orientation. While Judge Barrett has been evasive in the hearings, her record is not unclear. I would like to walk through her record on civil rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, and climate. Let's start with civil and voting rights. Being named a Supreme Court Justice is an honor. A Justice should be a defender of human rights and civil rights, and a Justice must have an unbreakable commitment to fight for what is right and to lead the pursuit in making America more free. Judge Barrett has written that the entire 14th Amendment is ``possibly illegitimate.'' Yes, you heard that correctly. Judge Barrett questions the legitimacy of the very amendment that is the cornerstone of civil rights and equal protections in this country. The 14th Amendment was proposed during Reconstruction following the Civil War when the Union was deciding how to readmit Confederate States and restore their representation to Congress. One of the conditions for allowing them to reenter was passing and ratifying the 14th Amendment. The theory that she uses to challenge its validity is that the South was strong-armed in the supporting it, so the amendment never truly earned the support of the American people. That is crazy. There is nothing in the law to justify this position, and there never has been. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls this a White supremacist myth, perpetrated by Confederate sympathizers, the KKK, and other extreme rightwing groups. It is unfathomable to think that anybody in the year 2020 would be opposed to the simple concept that every American should be treated equally under the law. It really should disqualify Judge Barrett from the Supreme Court seat. At the same time, she has repeatedly overlooked discrimination in the workplace, concluding that separate can be equal. I mean, this is basic civics. I have two teenagers. This is the stuff we learned as bedrock foundational American history in civics. She is saying separate can be equal. I read this opinion. She said that using a racial slur in the workplace does not necessarily create a hostile work environment for the object of that slur. Try to fathom a situation where someone is calling someone a racial epithet but that is not hostility in the workplace. Her brain is big; I don't doubt it. But it is a pretty extraordinary stretch of a pretty extraordinary brain to try to assert that saying something racist to someone in the workplace is not a hostile act. It is definitely a hostile act. Maybe I just lack the educational attainment to understand how you get so smart that you lose all of your common sense and all of your decency and all of your humanity and you forget what you learned in 6th grade and 9th grade and 12th grade. During the hearing this week, Judge Barrett declined to agree that intimidating voters is illegal. I mean, this isn't a matter of interpreting constitutional law. This is Federal statute. She also refused to say whether she believes voter discrimination still exists. She refused to say whether voter discrimination still exists. It is like worse than I thought. Right? I am a Democrat. I didn't want anybody who didn't share Ruth Bader Ginsburg's views to replace her. But I am alarmed. And because of her extraordinary skill and because she comported herself well in the hearings, I don't think people really know how dangerous this is about to be. I think people are in for a rude awakening in terms of what this Court is about to do to roll back the clock on some stuff that we pretty much think we already agree on: gay rights, 70 percent of the public, like we have moved on; reproductive choice, 70 percent of the public, we moved on; the Affordable Care Act, after 15 years or whatever it is, 12 years of fighting about it, we kind of moved on. Now, you have Republicans making ads saying, I am going to protect your preexisting conditions. The American public has a consensus on a number of things. I think all of these people are prepared to undo that consensus. Here is what is so alarming--maybe it was this morning or maybe it was yesterday--the majority leader, Leader McConnell, after giving, to me, what was a weird speech--not substantively. I knew the speech he was going to give, essentially blaming Harry Reid for everything. Fine. I mean, I disagree with it, but I don't begrudge him a partisan speech in this context. But the way he did it, he turned his back--I mean, you are supposed to address the Chair, right? Some of us move around. But this was weird. He turned his back on the Democratic side of the aisle and just stared at his caucus and gave them a pep talk and said--I am going to paraphrase right now, but it was basically, The stuff we have done over the last 4 years is going to be undone in legislative terms as a result of coming elections, but what we are doing on the Court will last a lifetime. I get the point that he is making because he is just measuring his power. But everybody should listen to what he is saying. He is promising that it doesn't matter what we do over here because they are going to undo it over there. This man who presents himself as an institutionalist is deciding that the U.S. Senate's role is to just stack the judiciary and stop legislating, and that is alarming. I want to make one sort of final point. I really worry about the Senate itself. I was so thrilled to be here. The circumstances of my entering the Senate were tragic, actually, because of the death of my predecessor. But I am not going to lie--I was being sent to the world's greatest deliberative body. It is like a promising high school basketball player, like being the 12th man on the LA Lakers. That is how I felt. I walked in, and I thought: This is the big show. This is the place where we solve America's problems. I have seen the inexorable destruction of this institution because of a lack of restraint on the Republican side. I actually would love it if the blame were equally shared. It would be easier for me because I don't want to sound like that. I don't get anything out of that. I imagined these groups of people--and it wasn't always the moderates right in the middle. Nowadays, the only people who are kind of cutting deals in the middle are the moderates. But back in the day, it was Teddy Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. It was Danny Inouye and Ted Stevens. And now there is not even a desire to do big things here. There is a total lack of ambition to solve America's problems here, and there is a total lack of restraint when it comes to the exercise of power. So the old Senate is gone. The old Senate is gone, and this body has reinvented itself over and over and over again, and it is going to have to do it again. But that old Senate where you could pour a scotch after yelling at each other on the floor, it is gone. I can't tell you the number of times I have invited my Republican colleagues to come down to the floor and have a debate. We don't even argue anymore. They go on FOX News. We go on MSNBC. We line up. We smash helmets. They win 52 to 48. So what is happening in this time period, which is to say in the next 24 hours, is sort of the culmination of Leader McConnell's philosophy about what this place should do, which is, we do judges. We don't do big things, we don't even try to do big things, and we never fail to maximally use our power. That is a different model for our legislature. Frankly, it is how a lot of legislatures work; it is just not the way this place used to work. But if that is the model, then Democrats are going to have to wrap their minds around what has happened because we can't be the only ones showing any restraint, right, because that is just a recipe for getting rolled and rolled and rolled, and that is a recipe for entrenching minority rule. I understand that the structure of the Senate is what it is. It is enshrined in the Constitution, and far be it from me to argue that small States shouldn't get two Senators. Small States should get two Senators. Whether you have 1.5 million people or 50 million people in your State, you should get two Senators. I am for that. But the way this is starting to work is that elected representatives who collectively have gathered 10 million, maybe 12 million, maybe by the year 2030, 30 million fewer votes than the minority party, are going to stack the judiciary and entrench minority rule. So something has to give. Yes, I know there are elections that can resolve this, and sometimes when thingsfeel stuck, maybe they are not as stuck as they feel, but the shoe is going to be on the other foot. As my good friend Claire McCaskill, the former Senator from Missouri, says, you know, the door swings both ways in Washington. So I just think it is important for every Member of this body to understand that the door swings both ways in Washington. If we are going to rebuild this institution and rebuild the trust that the public has in their elected representatives and the judiciary and public leaders, then we are going to have to be trustworthy with each other. I feel betrayed. One of the most pleasurable aspects of working in this place when I first got here, coming from an almost entirely Democratic State, was my ability to work with Republicans. It was a unique professional challenge for me. I am looking at the Presiding Officer, and we did some pretty good work together, and it was a pleasure. That was fun, and that was the way this place should work. I worry about how frayed those relationships are, and I worry about the fact that there is this kind of principle that all is fair in love and war. These guys are about to do something even worse, so you might as well punch them in the mouth preemptively, and the kind of rah-rah speeches that I believe go on in the Republican conference characterizing us as promising to do unusually aggressive things, and therefore they might as well get it over with in advance. By the way, Harry Reid did X, Y, and Z, and what about Robert Byrd? And they get told a story about how awful we are, and then that justifies their breaking their bond with us. I understand that a lot of what happens here is a result of polarization across the country--I would argue asymmetric polarization--but people matter, relationships matter, and trust matters. I have never felt so clear that we as Members have been betrayed; that the arguments that were made in favor of holding up Merrick Garland were BS, and we have a long way to go to rebuild this institution. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6518-2 | null | 1,564 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Americans with protected pre-existing conditions As many as 133 million Americans--roughly half the population under the age of 65--have pre-existing medical conditions that could disqualify them from buying a health insurance policy or cause them to pay significantly higher premiums if the health law were overturned, according to a government analysis done in 2017. An existing medical condition includes such common ailments as high blood pressure or asthma, any of which could require those buying insurance on their own to pay much more for a policy, if they could get one at all. The coronavirus, which has infected nearly seven million Americans to date and may have long-term health implications for many of those who become ill, could also become one of the many medical histories that would make it challenging for someone to find insurance. Under the A.C.A., no one can be denied coverage under any circumstance, and insurance companies cannot retroactively cancel a policy unless they find evidence of fraud. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 54 million people have conditions serious enough that insurers would outright deny them coverage if the A.C.A. were not in effect, according to an analysis it did in 2019. Its estimates are based on the guidelines insurers had in place about whom to cover before the law was enacted. Most Americans would still be able to get coverage under a plan provided by an employer or under a federal program, as they did before the law was passed, but protections for pre-existing conditions are particularly important during an economic downturn or to those who want to start their own businesses or retire early. Before the A.C.A., employers would sometimes refuse to cover certain conditions. If the law went away, companies would have to decide if they would drop any of the conditions they are now required to cover. The need to protect people with existing medical conditions from discrimination by insurers was a central theme in the 2018 midterm elections, and Democrats attributed much of their success in reclaiming control of the House of Representatives to voters' desire to safeguard those protections. Mr. Trump and many Republicans promise to keep this provision of the law, but have not said how they would do that. Before the law, some individuals were sent to high-risk pools operated by states, but even that coverage was often inadequate. 21 Million | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6532 | null | 1,565 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Americans with protected pre-existing conditions As many as 133 million Americans--roughly half the population under the age of 65--have pre-existing medical conditions that could disqualify them from buying a health insurance policy or cause them to pay significantly higher premiums if the health law were overturned, according to a government analysis done in 2017. An existing medical condition includes such common ailments as high blood pressure or asthma, any of which could require those buying insurance on their own to pay much more for a policy, if they could get one at all. The coronavirus, which has infected nearly seven million Americans to date and may have long-term health implications for many of those who become ill, could also become one of the many medical histories that would make it challenging for someone to find insurance. Under the A.C.A., no one can be denied coverage under any circumstance, and insurance companies cannot retroactively cancel a policy unless they find evidence of fraud. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 54 million people have conditions serious enough that insurers would outright deny them coverage if the A.C.A. were not in effect, according to an analysis it did in 2019. Its estimates are based on the guidelines insurers had in place about whom to cover before the law was enacted. Most Americans would still be able to get coverage under a plan provided by an employer or under a federal program, as they did before the law was passed, but protections for pre-existing conditions are particularly important during an economic downturn or to those who want to start their own businesses or retire early. Before the A.C.A., employers would sometimes refuse to cover certain conditions. If the law went away, companies would have to decide if they would drop any of the conditions they are now required to cover. The need to protect people with existing medical conditions from discrimination by insurers was a central theme in the 2018 midterm elections, and Democrats attributed much of their success in reclaiming control of the House of Representatives to voters' desire to safeguard those protections. Mr. Trump and many Republicans promise to keep this provision of the law, but have not said how they would do that. Before the law, some individuals were sent to high-risk pools operated by states, but even that coverage was often inadequate. 21 Million | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6532 | null | 1,566 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Medical care for the uninsured could cost billions more Doctors and hospitals could lose a crucial source of revenue, as more people lose insurance during an economic downturn. The Urban Institute estimated that nationwide, without the A.C.A., the cost of care for people who cannot pay for it could increase as much as $50.2 billion. Hospitals and other medical providers, many of whom are already struggling financially because of the pandemic, would incur losses, as many now have higher revenues and reduced costs for uncompensated care in states that expanded Medicaid. A study in 2017 by the Commonwealth Fund found that for every dollar of uncompensated care costs those states had in 2013, the health law had erased 40 cents by 2015, or a total of $6.2 billion. The health insurance industry would be upended by the elimination of A.C.A. requirements. Insurers in many markets could again deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and they could charge women higher rates. States could still regulate insurance, but consumers would see more variation from state to state. Insurers would also probably see lower revenues and fewer members in the plans they operate in the individual market and for state Medicaid programs at a time when millions of people are losing their job-based coverage. 1,000 CaloriesMenu labels are among dozens of the law's provisions that are less well known The A.C.A. requires nutrition labeling and calorie counts on menu items at chain restaurants. It requires many employers to provide ``reasonable break time'' and a private space for nursing mothers to pump breast milk. It created a pathway for federal approval of biosimilars, which are near-copies of biologic drugs, made from living cells. These and other measures would have no legal mandate to continue if the A.C.A. is eliminated.'' The ACA has made significant progress in the ability to expand women's access to health care. Pushing for its repeal means putting that progress and women's futures at risk. I would like to read an article by Jamille Fields Allsbrook from the Center for American Progress entitled ``Repealing the ACA During the Coronavirus Pandemic Would Be Devastating for Women's Health and Economic Security.'' It reads: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been one of the most significant advancements for women's health and economic security in a generation. The law expanded coverage to millions of uninsured people through financial assistance and public insurance and also improved the quality of existing coverage, including by expanding access to reproductive and maternal health services and by prohibiting discrimination against women and people with preexisting conditions. Yet its fate remains uncertain. On November 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, a case that will determine the constitutionality of the ACA. Specifically, the high court will determine whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional and whether the remainder of the law is inseverable from that provision. Especially with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent passing, the benefits and consumer protections that women have gained and come to rely on could swiftly be eliminated. In short, if the ACA is repealed, coverage for more than 20 million people and the significant benefits and consumer protections that have been gained under that law are at stake. Compounding this issue, the ACA repeal would come at a time when the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic crisis have already burdened women. For instance, unprecedented job losses have resulted in the loss of insurance coverage; barriers to maternal and reproductive health care have been erected; the providers women rely on--who were already underfunded--have been stretched to capacity; and health disparities that have historically burdened Black and Latina women have been exacerbated and compounded. Repealing the ACA during the pandemic would no doubt cost women--especially women of color, women with disabilities, women with low incomes, and young women. First, repealing the ACA would reduce access to treatments and vaccines during the pandemic and allow COVID-19 survivors to be discriminated against in the insurance market, thus lengthening the time that the crisis will likely affect women and their families. Second, the economic crisis has already harmed women the most, and eliminating coverage and allowing gender rating and coverage caps would shift additional costs on to women. Lastly, existing barriers to maternal and reproductive health services, both those created during and before the pandemic, would likely be exacerbated.1. Repealing the ACA would prolong and worsen the effects of the pandemic for women and their families. While a repeal of the ACA would be chaotic and devastating even in typical times, the current pandemic would only magnify its effects. Without coverage, women would experience barriers to a COVID-19 treatment and vaccine--which could prolong the effects of the pandemic. These barriers would be most devastating, however, for women of color given the health inequities associated with COVID-19. Compared with white, non-Hispanic people, Black people are 2.6 times more likely to contract the virus, 4.7 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 2.1 times more likely to die from the disease. Similarly, American Indian and Alaska Native people contract the virus at 2.8 times the rate, are hospitalized at 5.3 times the rate, and die at 1.4 times the rate of white, non-Hispanic people. And Latinx people are 2.8 times more likely to contract the virus, 4.6 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 1.1 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than white, non-Hispanic people. Even worse, if the ACA is repealed, COVID-19 survivors could be discriminated against when seeking insurance coverage. Without ACA protections, insurers in the individual market could once again charge enrollees more or deny them coverage if they have a preexisting condition. This could affect the more than 7 million Americans who have been infected with COVID-19, as it could be deemed a preexisting condition. Even before the pandemic, a Center for American Progress analysis found that nearly 68 million women--more than half of girls and nonelderly women in the country--had a preexisting condition. If insurers are able to make the determination as to whether a person has a preexisting condition, conditions ranging from HIV/AIDS to breast cancer to the nearly 6 million annual pregnancies could again be included in this category. And importantly, Black, Latinx and American Indian and Alaska Native people have higher rates of COVID-19 as well as certain chronic conditions such as cervical cancer and diabetes, so eliminating coverage and protections for people with preexisting conditions would harm these communities the most. 2. Women's financial security would be threatened by an ACA repeal. Women have lost the majority of jobs since the start of the pandemic. In fact, multiple studies have pointed to the fact that the current recession is tougher on women than men. One U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics explains that unlike past recessions, ``the [coronavirus] crisis has battered industry sectors in which women's employment is more concentrated-- restaurants and other retail establishments, hospitality and health care.'' Additionally, school closures have forced women, who are more likely to be primary caregivers for young children or sick family members, to reduce hours or leave their jobs--which can also result in coverage loses. In particular, Black and Latina mothers are more likely than white mothers to be the sole or primary breadwinners of their households, so they will be hit hardest by the additional financial burdens. Before the pandemic, there was already a wage gap between women and men--a gap that is exacerbated by race and ethnicity, given that Black, Latinx, and American Indian and Alaskan Native populations experience poverty rates that are significantly higher than those of non- Hispanic, white populations. Perhaps as a result, women were already more likely than men to forgo or delay accessing recommended care due to costs. Yet given the pandemic, losing the financial security afforded by having insurance coverage would be even more devastating for women. The ACA provided financial assistance for private insurance coverage and expanded enrollment in the Medicaid program, which resulted in the uninsurance rate reaching a historic low. As a result, the uninsurance rate among women declined by nearly half from 2010 to 2016. An ACA repeal would merely undermine safety net programs when people need them the most. Women comprise 58 percent of Medicaid enrollees according to 2018 data, and Medicaid expansion resulted in a 13-percent decrease in the uninsurance rate of young women of reproductive age--19 to 44 years old-- with low incomes. In particular, Medicaid's no- and low- cost services afford necessary and preventive health care access to people with low incomes, a disproportionate number of whom are women of color due to systemic racism, sexism, and poverty. From 2013 to 2018, due to the ACA's coverage expansions, fewer Black women and Latinas reported delaying care as a result of costs, narrowing the disparity between white women and women of color. Women who maintain access to insurance coverage could also face increased costs. If the ACA's prohibition on gender rating is repealed, insurers could once again charge women more for coverage in the individual and small-group markets simply for being women, reinstating a practice that collectively cost women $1 billion more than men each year. Additionally, the ACA created the Health Care Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, and disability; notably, this marks the first time that a federal prohibition against sex discrimination was applied broadly to health care. Lastly, if the health care law is repealed, women with chronic conditions, such as HIV and cancer, could be subject to annual lifetime limits--a practice prohibited under the ACA that allowed insurers to require plan enrollees pay out of pocket for all services after they reach a certain dollar threshold. These increased costs could easily price many women out of insurance in the middle of a public health crisis. The ACA has also been associated with improving job opportunities. The majority of people in the United States access health coverage through their employer, yet by improving access to coverage that is not job-based, the ACA has afforded people the ability to leave or switch jobs with assurance that they won't lose the coverage. Moreover, the ACA created at least 240,000 jobs in the health care industry from 2014 to 2016--and women comprise the majority of health care workers. The chaos that would result from repealing the ACA would be felt particularly acutely by those employed in these jobs. 3. Repealing the ACA would exacerbate existing barriers to reproductive and maternal health care services. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnant people with COVID-19 have higher rates of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation. And alarmingly, Black pregnant women are disproportionately contracting COVID-19. Subsequently, there are concerns that the pandemic will exacerbate existing health inequities that have led to Black, as well as American Indian and Alaska Native women, dying from pregnancy-related complications at around three times the rate of white, non- Hispanic women. A repeal of the ACA in its entirety would result in reduced access to pre- and post-natal care for as many as 13 million people in the individual market because the individual and small-group health plans would no longer be required to cover certain basic health care services-- known as essential health benefits--including maternity and newborn care. Eliminating the expanded eligibility created under the ACA could also worsen the crisis given that Medicaid expansion is associated with lower rates of maternal and infant mortality and covers 50 percent of births in the United States. Moreover, due to the many unknowns that remain regarding how COVID-19 affects pregnant people, some individuals may want to delay or forgo pregnancy, necessitating access to comprehensive reproductive health services. The ACA requires most plans to cover birth control with no out-of-pocket costs. As a result, women have saved more than $1.4 billion a year in out-of-pocket costs on birth control pills. According to data from the National Women's Law Center, 61.4 million women currently have access to birth control as well as other preventive services, such as well-woman visits, with no out- of-pocket costs--thanks to the ACA. Without requirements for those services to be covered, women would be forced to pay out of pocket or forgo care if they could not afford to. Illustratively, without insurance coverage, birth control pills would cost a woman up to $600 per year, and an intrauterine device would cost about $1,000 out of pocket. Additionally, the pandemic has erected barriers that make it harder for women to access necessary preventive care--both as a result of job losses and barriers to accessing care during the pandemic. As a result, women have already delayed care in recent months. A repeal of the ACA would only lead to further delays given that plans would no longer be required to cover preventive screenings, mental and substance abuse services, rehabilitative services, and a host of other services. President Donald Trump and his conservative allies in the Senate are not only forgoing their responsibility to address the dueling health and economic crises, they are also rushing to install a new, conservative justice on the Supreme Court who would tilt its balance in favor of striking down the ACA. With November oral arguments quickly approaching, this has increased the risk that the health care law will be repealed. Given the health benefits, protections against discrimination, and financial security that the ACA affords women, destroying the law would be immeasurably harmful to women at any time. But repealing the law in the midst of a global pandemic that has infected millions of Americas and killed more than 200,000 people in the United States would result in even more chaos and devastation. One of the newest groups of people with preexisting conditions who are worried about losing or being able to afford coverage are the COVID long-haulers. I would like to read this article from PEW Stateline, written by Michael Ollove, entitled ``COVID-19 `Long-Haulers' Worry About Coverage Costs.'' It reads: Andrea Ceresa has been through three gastroenterologists already and now is moving on to her fourth. She's seen an infectious disease specialist, a hematologist, cardiologist, an ear, nose and throat specialist, a physiatrist and an integrative doctor. She has an appointment coming up with a neuropsychologist and another one with a neurologist. She had an endoscopy, colonoscopy, CT scan, brain MRI, and so many blood tests, she said ``I feel like a human pin cushion.'' She was planning a trip soon to an acupuncturist and has a referral for occupational therapy. Ceresa, a resident of Branchburg, NJ, relayed this medical litany on day 164 of her COVID-19 ordeal. So far, she said, nothing much has helped. Before COVID-19, Ceresa was a healthy, active 46-year-old who managed a dental office by day and sang professionally by night, a woman who enjoyed yoga and jumped on a WaveRunner any chance she got. Now, beset by a multitude of unshakable symptoms, she said COVID-19 has transformed her into a ``shell'' of what she was. All parts of her body are in rebellion. She has severe, persistent diarrhea, constant nausea, dizziness, paralyzing fatigue, piercing headaches, numbness in her limbs, blurry vision, ringing in her ears, and a loss of hearing, an insurmountable deficit for a musician. She gets a rash on her face, finds light and Sun painful on her eyes--a condition known as photophobia--and suddenly finds herself feeling uncomfortably cold for no reason. On top of all that is an alarming brain fog. ``At some point in this conversation,'' she warned, ``I might lose my train of thought or forget words.'' When this will end--if it will end--none of those doctors and specialists can tell her, nor can anyone else, not at the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization or any other major health organization. As a result, Ceresa has no idea what life holds for her. So-called long-haulers like Ceresa pose policy questions that have yet to command much public attention but daily become more pressing for those with lingering problems. Unable to work, will they have access to health insurance, especially if the Trump administration succeeds in overturning the Affordable Care Act. Will Medicaid be available to them? Will the Federal Government invest in research and treatment? Will they be eligible for disability benefits? Advocates say it is essential to begin grappling with these questions now as it becomes increasingly clear that for many being ill with COVID-19 is not a transitory experience. ``As time goes on and infection rates go up, the fallout is an extraordinary number of people who were previously healthy, working, and engaged in the economy will now become shadows of their former selves,'' said Diana Berrent, founder of Survivor Corps, a grassroots organization connecting those who have been infected with COVID-19. Berrent said it has 107,000 members. ``People are aging decades in the course of months,'' said Berrent, who is still experiencing symptoms months after her positive test. ``People in their 20s are suffering heart attacks and strokes months after their moderate or even mild COVID experiences.'' More attention needs to be paid to those with persistent, serious COVID-19 symptoms, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease doctor and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. In this pandemic so far we've thought mainly about the metrics of deaths and hospitalizations, but now we must think about people with long-haul symptoms. How will this affect society as a whole? What happens if people don't go back to their former level of activities? For her part, Ceresa has no idea when or if she will be able to return to work. She lost her employer-sponsored healthcare and recently got on an ObamaCare policy. But, with uncertainty hanging over the ACA, she wonders how long she will have it ``I have a plethora of preexisting conditions that I never had before,'' she said. Meanwhile, hardly a day goes by that she doesn't have some kind of medical appointment, including some at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, which opened what Berrent said is one of only two centers in the United States specifically focused on those with ``long COVID-19.'' ``I'm doing everything you can imagine to try to get better,'' Ceresa said. ``If someone says, `Try this,' I'll try. I'll walk on coals. The list of referrals I have is off the charts.'' Exactly how many people fall into the category of long-haulers is uncertain, which is part of the problem, Berrent said. There is very little research yet on the experiences of people who suffer from persistent COVID-19 symptoms. ``Even if it's a small percentage of people with long-haul symptoms,'' Adalja said, ``with more than seven million people infected overall that's still going to be a big number.'' The CDC in late July reported that 35 percent of symptomatic adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 said they had not returned to their usual state of health 2 to 3 weeks after their tests. Among those ages 18-34, 1 in 5 hadn't returned to their normal states of health. The survey did not include children. There appears to be no data yet on numbers of people experiencing serious symptoms over longer periods of time or detailed information about their circumstances, such as age, gender, medical histories, or course of their illnesses. Complicating the data collection is that many of them, even those with debilitating symptoms, were never hospitalized. Some researchers are delving into the subject, including Natalie Lambert, a medical researcher at Indiana University School of Medicine, who has partnered with Berrent's group to amass a far more extensive list of COVID-19-related symptoms reported by long-haulers than the 11 symptoms CDC identifies. Lambert's survey lists 98. Respondents characterize more than a quarter of those symptoms as painful. Because so little is still known about COVID-19, Lambert said doctors often dismiss patient concerns that their symptoms are virus related. ``If a provider is updated, things move along and that patient has access to best care,'' said Lambert. ``But if the provider is not up to date or is skeptical that the symptoms are COVID-related, they might think that it's just a case of reflux or anxiety. In those cases, patients are stuck.'' Kelly Ausiello, a 42-year-old registered nurse in Hendersonville, NV, has had a constellation of symptoms since April, including severe migraines, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and weakness. Ausiello has stopped going to doctors because none knew what to do for her. ``They keep saying they don't know how to help me,'' she said. ``They just say, `I don't know,' `I don't know,' `I don't know.' '' She had to suspend her studies to become a nurse practitioner, which she was on course to complete in December. She doesn't know if her health will allow her to ever resume. ``My life is changing maybe forever,'' she said. Long-term COVID-19 raises several policy issues. For people affected, none is more urgent than the threat of losing their health insurance. The ACA, which passed in 2010, barred health insurers from denying coverage to people with serious or chronic health conditions prior to enrollment, adding significant surcharges to their premiums, curtailing their benefits, or imposing extended waiting periods on them. Such protections would vanish if the Supreme Court invalidates the ACA, as the Trump administration and Republican Governors or attorney generals in20 States are urging it to do. The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case next month, possibly with a new, decisive, Trump-nominated Justice on the bench. A 2017 Federal study found that up to 133 million Americans under age 65 had preexisting conditions. COVID-19 could add substantial numbers of people to that total. Without the ACA's protections, people who had a positive test for COVID-19 could be denied coverage. More than 7.5 million cases have been reported in the United States. Because the virus has been linked to damage to the heart, lungs, and brain, a positive COVID-19 test could be used to argue that a patient had had a preexisting condition--COVID-19--to refuse claims to a patient who later developed a disease related to one of those organs. But even those with negative tests could get caught in the same net, according to a paper published late last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The paper notes, for example, that rideshare drivers who get tested because they worry they have been exposed could be refused coverage if an insurer determines that those seeking tests have higher odds of infection. ``If ACA protections are invalidated, such people might be turned down, charged more, or offered a policy that temporarily or permanently excludes coverage for COVID-19,'' the paper said. Karen Pollitz, one of the authors, described insurers as ruthless when it came to medical underwriting in the days before the ACA. ``The individual health insurance market pre-ACA was a competitive market,'' she said. ``It did not pay for one insurer to be more generous than another. It was a race to the bottom.'' Without explaining how they would do it without the ACA, President Donald Trump and some congressional Republicans have promised they would continue to protect those with preexisting conditions. At least 17 States have adopted laws preserving preexisting condition protections should the ACA be overturned, but the effectiveness of those laws is questionable. The ACA also helps stabilize health insurance premiums through Federal tax credits it provides to low-income policyholders. Those dollars would be eliminated without the ACA, probably putting health insurance out of reach for many Americans, particularly those facing high surcharges for preexisting conditions. Even if some States tried to preserve the protections within their borders, insurers could simply refuse to offer coverage to residents of those states. The elimination of the ACA also might scrap the Medicaid expansion that was part of the law. That alone could deprive more than 12 million low-income, adult Americans, some of them no doubt long-haulers, of health insurance coverage. The dearth of testing, especially early in the pandemic, could become a problem for long-haulers if Congress eventually creates a fund to help pay for COVID-19 treatment, as it eventually did for first responders affected by their work at Ground Zero after 9/11. ``People are going to need to prove they had COVID, but how do you do that when tests weren't available or were faulty?'' said Berrent. ``That's going to put people in a pickle.'' Without firm, black-and-white results, patients with lingering symptoms could find it impossible to make their case that their illnesses were coronavirus-related. ``There may come a period in which people are going to have to prove that COVID is the reason for their heart issue or lung disease and not just that they're getting older,'' said Nathan Boucher, an assistant research professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. Berrent said many of those in her group complain of doctors not believing them. ``People are being gaslit by doctors,'' she said. ``And it's more women than men. I call it a modern-day version of what they used to call female hysteria.'' Joy Wu, a 37-year-old engineer in the San Francisco Bay area, has had firsthand experience with that medical skepticism. She contracted what she believes was COVID-19 after returning in March from a vacation on the Galapagos Islands. She experienced dizziness, nausea, fatigue, back pain, confusion, excruciating headaches, and such weakness that she has repeatedly fallen. Sometimes her heart races so fast, she said, ``It feels like it's going to explode.'' She has episodes of tingling in her limbs and brain fog. Because she didn't have the respiratory symptoms most often associated with COVID-19, she didn't have a diagnostic test until day 43, too late to know if she was infected, as she thinks she was, weeks earlier. She tested negative. She said an ER doctor diagnosed her with COVID-19, although three medical doctors have attributed her symptoms to anxiety. But Wu said that both a psychiatrist and a psychologist who examined her told her that mental illness doesn't explain her symptoms. It was through a COVID-19 support Facebook group that she found others with similar symptoms. Apart from ensuring that long-haulers can get health insurance, Berrent believes policymakers need to ensure that COVID-19 patients will not be barred from receiving disability benefits. Many, such as Ceresa and Wu, will not return to the workforce anytime soon. ``Disability wasn't meant for people when they're 30 or 40, but that's what we are going to be facing,'' she said. Beyond finding a way to pay for COVID-19 treatment, Berrent said, the Federal Government should invest heavily in understanding the medical experience of long-haulers with an eye toward developing effective treatments. She wants to see more post-COVID-19 centers established for research and treatment. ``We need a warp speed race for a therapeutic for people suffering from post-COVID-19 that parallels what we're seeing for the development of a vaccine,'' she said.'' The Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans access the health coverage they need, and it has worked to address racial disparities in health coverage. Overturning it threatens to undo that progress. I would like to read an article from the Kaiser Family Foundation by Samantha Artiga, entitled ``Loss of the Affordable Care Act Would Widen Racial Disparities in Health Coverage.'' It reads: ``In November, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on a legal challenge, supported by the Trump administration, that seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As noted in a previous KFF analysis, the outcome will have major effects throughout the health care system as the law's provisions have affected nearly all Americans in some way. One of the most significant aspects of the ACA has been its expansion of health coverage options through the Medicaid expansion to low-income adults and the creation of the health insurance marketplaces with subsidies to help people purchase coverage. This analysis shows that these new coverage options have contributed to large gains in coverage, particularly among people of color, helping to narrow longstanding racial disparities in health coverage. The loss of these coverage pathways, particularly the Medicaid expansion, would likely lead to disproportionate coverage losses among people of color, which would widen disparities in coverage, access to care, and health outcomes. Prior to the ACA, people of color were significantly more likely to be uninsured than White people. The higher uninsured rates among groups of color reflected limited access to affordable health coverage options. Although the majority of individuals have at least one full-time worker in the family across racial and ethnic groups, people of color are more likely to live in low-income families that do not have coverage offered by an employer or to have difficulty affording private coverage when it is available. While Medicaid helped fill some of this gap in private coverage for groups of color, before the ACA, Medicaid eligibility for parents was limited to those with very low incomes (often below 50% of the poverty level), and adults without dependent children--regardless of how poor--were ineligible under federal rules. People of color experienced large coverage gains under the ACA that helped to narrow but did not eliminate disparities in health coverage. Coveragerates increased for all racial/ethnic groups between 2010 and 2016, with the largest increases occurring after implementation of the ACA Medicaid and Marketplace coverage expansions in 2014. Overall, nearly 20 million nonelderly people gained coverage over this period, including nearly 3 million Black people, over 5 million Hispanic people, and over 1 million Asian people. Among the nonelderly population, Hispanic individuals had the largest percentage point decrease in their uninsured rate, which fell from 32.6% to 19.1% between 2010 and 2016. Black, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) people also had larger percentage point decreases in their uninsured rates compared to their White counterparts over that period. These coverage gains reduced percentage point differences in uninsured rates between some groups of color and White people, but disparities persisted. Most groups of color remained more likely to be uninsured compared to White people. Moreover, the relative risk of being uninsured compared to White people did not improve for some groups. For example, Black people remained 1.5 times more likely to be uninsured than White people, and the uninsured rate among Hispanic people remained over 2.5 times higher than the rate for White people. Between 2016 and 2017, and continuing in 2018, coverage gains stalled and began reversing for some groups. Over this period there were small but statistically significant increases in the uninsured rates for White and Black people among the nonelderly population, which rose from 7.1% to 7.5% and from 10.7% to 11.5% respectively. Among children, there was also a statistically significant increase in the uninsured rate for Hispanic children, which rose from 7.6% to 8.0% between 2016 and 2018. Recent data further show that the number of uninsured continued to grow in 2019 despite improvements in household economic measures, and indicate the largest increases between 2018 and 2019 were among Hispanic people. The growth in the uninsured likely reflects a combination of factors, including rollback of outreach and enrollment efforts for ACA coverage, changes to Medicaid renewal processes, public charge policies, and elimination of the individual mandate penalty for health coverage. The ACA provides coverage options for people losing jobs amid the economic downturn associated with the pandemic. The economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic has led to historic levels of job loss. As people lose jobs, many may face disruptions in their health coverage since most people in the U.S. get their insurance through their job. Early KFF estimates of the implications of job loss found that nearly 27 million people were at risk of losing employer-sponsored health coverage due to job loss. Many of these people may have retained their coverage, at least in the short term, under furlough agreements or employers continuing benefits after layoffs. However, the health coverage options made available through the ACA have provided options for people losing employer-sponsored coverage who might otherwise become uninsured. Following enrollment declines in 2018 and 2019, recent data indicate Medicaid enrollment increased by 2.3 million or 3.2% from February 2020 to May 2020. Additionally, as of May 2020, enrollment data reveal nearly 500,000 people had gained Marketplace coverage through a special enrollment period (SEP), in most cases due to the loss of job-based coverage. The number of people gaining Marketplace coverage through a SEP in April 2020 was up 139% compared to April 2019 and up 43% in May 2020 compared to May 2019. People of color would likely experience the largest coverage losses if the ACA coverage options were eliminated. In the absence of the ACA, states would lose a pathway to cover adults without dependent children through Medicaid under federal rules. They also would lose access to the enhanced federal funding provided to cover expansion adults. As such, states would face challenges to maintain coverage for adults without dependent children and parents and many would likely roll back this coverage, eliminating a coverage option for millions of low-income parents and childless adults who do not have access to other affordable coverage. Moreover, without the federal subsidies, many people would not be able to afford private coverage. Since people of color experienced larger gains in coverage under the ACA compared to their White counterparts, they would likely also experience larger coverage losses if these coverage options were eliminated. Loss of the Medicaid expansion, in particular, would likely lead to disproportionate coverage losses among people of color, contributing to widening disparities in coverage, access to and use of care, and health outcomes. Overall, among the nonelderly population, roughly one in three Black, Hispanic, and AIAN people are covered by Medicaid compared to 15% of White people. Further, research shows that the ACA Medicaid expansion to low-income adults has helped to narrow racial disparities in health coverage, contributed to improvements in access to and use of care across groups, and narrowed disparities in health outcomes for Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly for measures of maternal health. In sum, the outcome of the pending legal challenge to overturn the ACA will have effects that extend broadly across the health care system and touch nearly all Americans. These effects could include widening racial disparities in health coverage and health care, at a time when there is a growing focus on prioritizing and advancing health equity and in the middle of a pandemic that has disproportionately affected people of color in the U.S. Without the ACA coverage expansions, people of color would likely face widening gaps in health insurance coverage, which would contribute to greater barriers to health care and worse health outcomes and leave them at increased risk for medical debt and financial challenges due to health care costs.'' | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6533-3 | null | 1,567 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Medical care for the uninsured could cost billions more Doctors and hospitals could lose a crucial source of revenue, as more people lose insurance during an economic downturn. The Urban Institute estimated that nationwide, without the A.C.A., the cost of care for people who cannot pay for it could increase as much as $50.2 billion. Hospitals and other medical providers, many of whom are already struggling financially because of the pandemic, would incur losses, as many now have higher revenues and reduced costs for uncompensated care in states that expanded Medicaid. A study in 2017 by the Commonwealth Fund found that for every dollar of uncompensated care costs those states had in 2013, the health law had erased 40 cents by 2015, or a total of $6.2 billion. The health insurance industry would be upended by the elimination of A.C.A. requirements. Insurers in many markets could again deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and they could charge women higher rates. States could still regulate insurance, but consumers would see more variation from state to state. Insurers would also probably see lower revenues and fewer members in the plans they operate in the individual market and for state Medicaid programs at a time when millions of people are losing their job-based coverage. 1,000 CaloriesMenu labels are among dozens of the law's provisions that are less well known The A.C.A. requires nutrition labeling and calorie counts on menu items at chain restaurants. It requires many employers to provide ``reasonable break time'' and a private space for nursing mothers to pump breast milk. It created a pathway for federal approval of biosimilars, which are near-copies of biologic drugs, made from living cells. These and other measures would have no legal mandate to continue if the A.C.A. is eliminated.'' The ACA has made significant progress in the ability to expand women's access to health care. Pushing for its repeal means putting that progress and women's futures at risk. I would like to read an article by Jamille Fields Allsbrook from the Center for American Progress entitled ``Repealing the ACA During the Coronavirus Pandemic Would Be Devastating for Women's Health and Economic Security.'' It reads: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been one of the most significant advancements for women's health and economic security in a generation. The law expanded coverage to millions of uninsured people through financial assistance and public insurance and also improved the quality of existing coverage, including by expanding access to reproductive and maternal health services and by prohibiting discrimination against women and people with preexisting conditions. Yet its fate remains uncertain. On November 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, a case that will determine the constitutionality of the ACA. Specifically, the high court will determine whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional and whether the remainder of the law is inseverable from that provision. Especially with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent passing, the benefits and consumer protections that women have gained and come to rely on could swiftly be eliminated. In short, if the ACA is repealed, coverage for more than 20 million people and the significant benefits and consumer protections that have been gained under that law are at stake. Compounding this issue, the ACA repeal would come at a time when the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic crisis have already burdened women. For instance, unprecedented job losses have resulted in the loss of insurance coverage; barriers to maternal and reproductive health care have been erected; the providers women rely on--who were already underfunded--have been stretched to capacity; and health disparities that have historically burdened Black and Latina women have been exacerbated and compounded. Repealing the ACA during the pandemic would no doubt cost women--especially women of color, women with disabilities, women with low incomes, and young women. First, repealing the ACA would reduce access to treatments and vaccines during the pandemic and allow COVID-19 survivors to be discriminated against in the insurance market, thus lengthening the time that the crisis will likely affect women and their families. Second, the economic crisis has already harmed women the most, and eliminating coverage and allowing gender rating and coverage caps would shift additional costs on to women. Lastly, existing barriers to maternal and reproductive health services, both those created during and before the pandemic, would likely be exacerbated.1. Repealing the ACA would prolong and worsen the effects of the pandemic for women and their families. While a repeal of the ACA would be chaotic and devastating even in typical times, the current pandemic would only magnify its effects. Without coverage, women would experience barriers to a COVID-19 treatment and vaccine--which could prolong the effects of the pandemic. These barriers would be most devastating, however, for women of color given the health inequities associated with COVID-19. Compared with white, non-Hispanic people, Black people are 2.6 times more likely to contract the virus, 4.7 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 2.1 times more likely to die from the disease. Similarly, American Indian and Alaska Native people contract the virus at 2.8 times the rate, are hospitalized at 5.3 times the rate, and die at 1.4 times the rate of white, non-Hispanic people. And Latinx people are 2.8 times more likely to contract the virus, 4.6 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 1.1 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than white, non-Hispanic people. Even worse, if the ACA is repealed, COVID-19 survivors could be discriminated against when seeking insurance coverage. Without ACA protections, insurers in the individual market could once again charge enrollees more or deny them coverage if they have a preexisting condition. This could affect the more than 7 million Americans who have been infected with COVID-19, as it could be deemed a preexisting condition. Even before the pandemic, a Center for American Progress analysis found that nearly 68 million women--more than half of girls and nonelderly women in the country--had a preexisting condition. If insurers are able to make the determination as to whether a person has a preexisting condition, conditions ranging from HIV/AIDS to breast cancer to the nearly 6 million annual pregnancies could again be included in this category. And importantly, Black, Latinx and American Indian and Alaska Native people have higher rates of COVID-19 as well as certain chronic conditions such as cervical cancer and diabetes, so eliminating coverage and protections for people with preexisting conditions would harm these communities the most. 2. Women's financial security would be threatened by an ACA repeal. Women have lost the majority of jobs since the start of the pandemic. In fact, multiple studies have pointed to the fact that the current recession is tougher on women than men. One U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics explains that unlike past recessions, ``the [coronavirus] crisis has battered industry sectors in which women's employment is more concentrated-- restaurants and other retail establishments, hospitality and health care.'' Additionally, school closures have forced women, who are more likely to be primary caregivers for young children or sick family members, to reduce hours or leave their jobs--which can also result in coverage loses. In particular, Black and Latina mothers are more likely than white mothers to be the sole or primary breadwinners of their households, so they will be hit hardest by the additional financial burdens. Before the pandemic, there was already a wage gap between women and men--a gap that is exacerbated by race and ethnicity, given that Black, Latinx, and American Indian and Alaskan Native populations experience poverty rates that are significantly higher than those of non- Hispanic, white populations. Perhaps as a result, women were already more likely than men to forgo or delay accessing recommended care due to costs. Yet given the pandemic, losing the financial security afforded by having insurance coverage would be even more devastating for women. The ACA provided financial assistance for private insurance coverage and expanded enrollment in the Medicaid program, which resulted in the uninsurance rate reaching a historic low. As a result, the uninsurance rate among women declined by nearly half from 2010 to 2016. An ACA repeal would merely undermine safety net programs when people need them the most. Women comprise 58 percent of Medicaid enrollees according to 2018 data, and Medicaid expansion resulted in a 13-percent decrease in the uninsurance rate of young women of reproductive age--19 to 44 years old-- with low incomes. In particular, Medicaid's no- and low- cost services afford necessary and preventive health care access to people with low incomes, a disproportionate number of whom are women of color due to systemic racism, sexism, and poverty. From 2013 to 2018, due to the ACA's coverage expansions, fewer Black women and Latinas reported delaying care as a result of costs, narrowing the disparity between white women and women of color. Women who maintain access to insurance coverage could also face increased costs. If the ACA's prohibition on gender rating is repealed, insurers could once again charge women more for coverage in the individual and small-group markets simply for being women, reinstating a practice that collectively cost women $1 billion more than men each year. Additionally, the ACA created the Health Care Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, and disability; notably, this marks the first time that a federal prohibition against sex discrimination was applied broadly to health care. Lastly, if the health care law is repealed, women with chronic conditions, such as HIV and cancer, could be subject to annual lifetime limits--a practice prohibited under the ACA that allowed insurers to require plan enrollees pay out of pocket for all services after they reach a certain dollar threshold. These increased costs could easily price many women out of insurance in the middle of a public health crisis. The ACA has also been associated with improving job opportunities. The majority of people in the United States access health coverage through their employer, yet by improving access to coverage that is not job-based, the ACA has afforded people the ability to leave or switch jobs with assurance that they won't lose the coverage. Moreover, the ACA created at least 240,000 jobs in the health care industry from 2014 to 2016--and women comprise the majority of health care workers. The chaos that would result from repealing the ACA would be felt particularly acutely by those employed in these jobs. 3. Repealing the ACA would exacerbate existing barriers to reproductive and maternal health care services. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnant people with COVID-19 have higher rates of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation. And alarmingly, Black pregnant women are disproportionately contracting COVID-19. Subsequently, there are concerns that the pandemic will exacerbate existing health inequities that have led to Black, as well as American Indian and Alaska Native women, dying from pregnancy-related complications at around three times the rate of white, non- Hispanic women. A repeal of the ACA in its entirety would result in reduced access to pre- and post-natal care for as many as 13 million people in the individual market because the individual and small-group health plans would no longer be required to cover certain basic health care services-- known as essential health benefits--including maternity and newborn care. Eliminating the expanded eligibility created under the ACA could also worsen the crisis given that Medicaid expansion is associated with lower rates of maternal and infant mortality and covers 50 percent of births in the United States. Moreover, due to the many unknowns that remain regarding how COVID-19 affects pregnant people, some individuals may want to delay or forgo pregnancy, necessitating access to comprehensive reproductive health services. The ACA requires most plans to cover birth control with no out-of-pocket costs. As a result, women have saved more than $1.4 billion a year in out-of-pocket costs on birth control pills. According to data from the National Women's Law Center, 61.4 million women currently have access to birth control as well as other preventive services, such as well-woman visits, with no out- of-pocket costs--thanks to the ACA. Without requirements for those services to be covered, women would be forced to pay out of pocket or forgo care if they could not afford to. Illustratively, without insurance coverage, birth control pills would cost a woman up to $600 per year, and an intrauterine device would cost about $1,000 out of pocket. Additionally, the pandemic has erected barriers that make it harder for women to access necessary preventive care--both as a result of job losses and barriers to accessing care during the pandemic. As a result, women have already delayed care in recent months. A repeal of the ACA would only lead to further delays given that plans would no longer be required to cover preventive screenings, mental and substance abuse services, rehabilitative services, and a host of other services. President Donald Trump and his conservative allies in the Senate are not only forgoing their responsibility to address the dueling health and economic crises, they are also rushing to install a new, conservative justice on the Supreme Court who would tilt its balance in favor of striking down the ACA. With November oral arguments quickly approaching, this has increased the risk that the health care law will be repealed. Given the health benefits, protections against discrimination, and financial security that the ACA affords women, destroying the law would be immeasurably harmful to women at any time. But repealing the law in the midst of a global pandemic that has infected millions of Americas and killed more than 200,000 people in the United States would result in even more chaos and devastation. One of the newest groups of people with preexisting conditions who are worried about losing or being able to afford coverage are the COVID long-haulers. I would like to read this article from PEW Stateline, written by Michael Ollove, entitled ``COVID-19 `Long-Haulers' Worry About Coverage Costs.'' It reads: Andrea Ceresa has been through three gastroenterologists already and now is moving on to her fourth. She's seen an infectious disease specialist, a hematologist, cardiologist, an ear, nose and throat specialist, a physiatrist and an integrative doctor. She has an appointment coming up with a neuropsychologist and another one with a neurologist. She had an endoscopy, colonoscopy, CT scan, brain MRI, and so many blood tests, she said ``I feel like a human pin cushion.'' She was planning a trip soon to an acupuncturist and has a referral for occupational therapy. Ceresa, a resident of Branchburg, NJ, relayed this medical litany on day 164 of her COVID-19 ordeal. So far, she said, nothing much has helped. Before COVID-19, Ceresa was a healthy, active 46-year-old who managed a dental office by day and sang professionally by night, a woman who enjoyed yoga and jumped on a WaveRunner any chance she got. Now, beset by a multitude of unshakable symptoms, she said COVID-19 has transformed her into a ``shell'' of what she was. All parts of her body are in rebellion. She has severe, persistent diarrhea, constant nausea, dizziness, paralyzing fatigue, piercing headaches, numbness in her limbs, blurry vision, ringing in her ears, and a loss of hearing, an insurmountable deficit for a musician. She gets a rash on her face, finds light and Sun painful on her eyes--a condition known as photophobia--and suddenly finds herself feeling uncomfortably cold for no reason. On top of all that is an alarming brain fog. ``At some point in this conversation,'' she warned, ``I might lose my train of thought or forget words.'' When this will end--if it will end--none of those doctors and specialists can tell her, nor can anyone else, not at the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization or any other major health organization. As a result, Ceresa has no idea what life holds for her. So-called long-haulers like Ceresa pose policy questions that have yet to command much public attention but daily become more pressing for those with lingering problems. Unable to work, will they have access to health insurance, especially if the Trump administration succeeds in overturning the Affordable Care Act. Will Medicaid be available to them? Will the Federal Government invest in research and treatment? Will they be eligible for disability benefits? Advocates say it is essential to begin grappling with these questions now as it becomes increasingly clear that for many being ill with COVID-19 is not a transitory experience. ``As time goes on and infection rates go up, the fallout is an extraordinary number of people who were previously healthy, working, and engaged in the economy will now become shadows of their former selves,'' said Diana Berrent, founder of Survivor Corps, a grassroots organization connecting those who have been infected with COVID-19. Berrent said it has 107,000 members. ``People are aging decades in the course of months,'' said Berrent, who is still experiencing symptoms months after her positive test. ``People in their 20s are suffering heart attacks and strokes months after their moderate or even mild COVID experiences.'' More attention needs to be paid to those with persistent, serious COVID-19 symptoms, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease doctor and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. In this pandemic so far we've thought mainly about the metrics of deaths and hospitalizations, but now we must think about people with long-haul symptoms. How will this affect society as a whole? What happens if people don't go back to their former level of activities? For her part, Ceresa has no idea when or if she will be able to return to work. She lost her employer-sponsored healthcare and recently got on an ObamaCare policy. But, with uncertainty hanging over the ACA, she wonders how long she will have it ``I have a plethora of preexisting conditions that I never had before,'' she said. Meanwhile, hardly a day goes by that she doesn't have some kind of medical appointment, including some at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, which opened what Berrent said is one of only two centers in the United States specifically focused on those with ``long COVID-19.'' ``I'm doing everything you can imagine to try to get better,'' Ceresa said. ``If someone says, `Try this,' I'll try. I'll walk on coals. The list of referrals I have is off the charts.'' Exactly how many people fall into the category of long-haulers is uncertain, which is part of the problem, Berrent said. There is very little research yet on the experiences of people who suffer from persistent COVID-19 symptoms. ``Even if it's a small percentage of people with long-haul symptoms,'' Adalja said, ``with more than seven million people infected overall that's still going to be a big number.'' The CDC in late July reported that 35 percent of symptomatic adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 said they had not returned to their usual state of health 2 to 3 weeks after their tests. Among those ages 18-34, 1 in 5 hadn't returned to their normal states of health. The survey did not include children. There appears to be no data yet on numbers of people experiencing serious symptoms over longer periods of time or detailed information about their circumstances, such as age, gender, medical histories, or course of their illnesses. Complicating the data collection is that many of them, even those with debilitating symptoms, were never hospitalized. Some researchers are delving into the subject, including Natalie Lambert, a medical researcher at Indiana University School of Medicine, who has partnered with Berrent's group to amass a far more extensive list of COVID-19-related symptoms reported by long-haulers than the 11 symptoms CDC identifies. Lambert's survey lists 98. Respondents characterize more than a quarter of those symptoms as painful. Because so little is still known about COVID-19, Lambert said doctors often dismiss patient concerns that their symptoms are virus related. ``If a provider is updated, things move along and that patient has access to best care,'' said Lambert. ``But if the provider is not up to date or is skeptical that the symptoms are COVID-related, they might think that it's just a case of reflux or anxiety. In those cases, patients are stuck.'' Kelly Ausiello, a 42-year-old registered nurse in Hendersonville, NV, has had a constellation of symptoms since April, including severe migraines, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and weakness. Ausiello has stopped going to doctors because none knew what to do for her. ``They keep saying they don't know how to help me,'' she said. ``They just say, `I don't know,' `I don't know,' `I don't know.' '' She had to suspend her studies to become a nurse practitioner, which she was on course to complete in December. She doesn't know if her health will allow her to ever resume. ``My life is changing maybe forever,'' she said. Long-term COVID-19 raises several policy issues. For people affected, none is more urgent than the threat of losing their health insurance. The ACA, which passed in 2010, barred health insurers from denying coverage to people with serious or chronic health conditions prior to enrollment, adding significant surcharges to their premiums, curtailing their benefits, or imposing extended waiting periods on them. Such protections would vanish if the Supreme Court invalidates the ACA, as the Trump administration and Republican Governors or attorney generals in20 States are urging it to do. The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case next month, possibly with a new, decisive, Trump-nominated Justice on the bench. A 2017 Federal study found that up to 133 million Americans under age 65 had preexisting conditions. COVID-19 could add substantial numbers of people to that total. Without the ACA's protections, people who had a positive test for COVID-19 could be denied coverage. More than 7.5 million cases have been reported in the United States. Because the virus has been linked to damage to the heart, lungs, and brain, a positive COVID-19 test could be used to argue that a patient had had a preexisting condition--COVID-19--to refuse claims to a patient who later developed a disease related to one of those organs. But even those with negative tests could get caught in the same net, according to a paper published late last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The paper notes, for example, that rideshare drivers who get tested because they worry they have been exposed could be refused coverage if an insurer determines that those seeking tests have higher odds of infection. ``If ACA protections are invalidated, such people might be turned down, charged more, or offered a policy that temporarily or permanently excludes coverage for COVID-19,'' the paper said. Karen Pollitz, one of the authors, described insurers as ruthless when it came to medical underwriting in the days before the ACA. ``The individual health insurance market pre-ACA was a competitive market,'' she said. ``It did not pay for one insurer to be more generous than another. It was a race to the bottom.'' Without explaining how they would do it without the ACA, President Donald Trump and some congressional Republicans have promised they would continue to protect those with preexisting conditions. At least 17 States have adopted laws preserving preexisting condition protections should the ACA be overturned, but the effectiveness of those laws is questionable. The ACA also helps stabilize health insurance premiums through Federal tax credits it provides to low-income policyholders. Those dollars would be eliminated without the ACA, probably putting health insurance out of reach for many Americans, particularly those facing high surcharges for preexisting conditions. Even if some States tried to preserve the protections within their borders, insurers could simply refuse to offer coverage to residents of those states. The elimination of the ACA also might scrap the Medicaid expansion that was part of the law. That alone could deprive more than 12 million low-income, adult Americans, some of them no doubt long-haulers, of health insurance coverage. The dearth of testing, especially early in the pandemic, could become a problem for long-haulers if Congress eventually creates a fund to help pay for COVID-19 treatment, as it eventually did for first responders affected by their work at Ground Zero after 9/11. ``People are going to need to prove they had COVID, but how do you do that when tests weren't available or were faulty?'' said Berrent. ``That's going to put people in a pickle.'' Without firm, black-and-white results, patients with lingering symptoms could find it impossible to make their case that their illnesses were coronavirus-related. ``There may come a period in which people are going to have to prove that COVID is the reason for their heart issue or lung disease and not just that they're getting older,'' said Nathan Boucher, an assistant research professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. Berrent said many of those in her group complain of doctors not believing them. ``People are being gaslit by doctors,'' she said. ``And it's more women than men. I call it a modern-day version of what they used to call female hysteria.'' Joy Wu, a 37-year-old engineer in the San Francisco Bay area, has had firsthand experience with that medical skepticism. She contracted what she believes was COVID-19 after returning in March from a vacation on the Galapagos Islands. She experienced dizziness, nausea, fatigue, back pain, confusion, excruciating headaches, and such weakness that she has repeatedly fallen. Sometimes her heart races so fast, she said, ``It feels like it's going to explode.'' She has episodes of tingling in her limbs and brain fog. Because she didn't have the respiratory symptoms most often associated with COVID-19, she didn't have a diagnostic test until day 43, too late to know if she was infected, as she thinks she was, weeks earlier. She tested negative. She said an ER doctor diagnosed her with COVID-19, although three medical doctors have attributed her symptoms to anxiety. But Wu said that both a psychiatrist and a psychologist who examined her told her that mental illness doesn't explain her symptoms. It was through a COVID-19 support Facebook group that she found others with similar symptoms. Apart from ensuring that long-haulers can get health insurance, Berrent believes policymakers need to ensure that COVID-19 patients will not be barred from receiving disability benefits. Many, such as Ceresa and Wu, will not return to the workforce anytime soon. ``Disability wasn't meant for people when they're 30 or 40, but that's what we are going to be facing,'' she said. Beyond finding a way to pay for COVID-19 treatment, Berrent said, the Federal Government should invest heavily in understanding the medical experience of long-haulers with an eye toward developing effective treatments. She wants to see more post-COVID-19 centers established for research and treatment. ``We need a warp speed race for a therapeutic for people suffering from post-COVID-19 that parallels what we're seeing for the development of a vaccine,'' she said.'' The Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans access the health coverage they need, and it has worked to address racial disparities in health coverage. Overturning it threatens to undo that progress. I would like to read an article from the Kaiser Family Foundation by Samantha Artiga, entitled ``Loss of the Affordable Care Act Would Widen Racial Disparities in Health Coverage.'' It reads: ``In November, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on a legal challenge, supported by the Trump administration, that seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As noted in a previous KFF analysis, the outcome will have major effects throughout the health care system as the law's provisions have affected nearly all Americans in some way. One of the most significant aspects of the ACA has been its expansion of health coverage options through the Medicaid expansion to low-income adults and the creation of the health insurance marketplaces with subsidies to help people purchase coverage. This analysis shows that these new coverage options have contributed to large gains in coverage, particularly among people of color, helping to narrow longstanding racial disparities in health coverage. The loss of these coverage pathways, particularly the Medicaid expansion, would likely lead to disproportionate coverage losses among people of color, which would widen disparities in coverage, access to care, and health outcomes. Prior to the ACA, people of color were significantly more likely to be uninsured than White people. The higher uninsured rates among groups of color reflected limited access to affordable health coverage options. Although the majority of individuals have at least one full-time worker in the family across racial and ethnic groups, people of color are more likely to live in low-income families that do not have coverage offered by an employer or to have difficulty affording private coverage when it is available. While Medicaid helped fill some of this gap in private coverage for groups of color, before the ACA, Medicaid eligibility for parents was limited to those with very low incomes (often below 50% of the poverty level), and adults without dependent children--regardless of how poor--were ineligible under federal rules. People of color experienced large coverage gains under the ACA that helped to narrow but did not eliminate disparities in health coverage. Coveragerates increased for all racial/ethnic groups between 2010 and 2016, with the largest increases occurring after implementation of the ACA Medicaid and Marketplace coverage expansions in 2014. Overall, nearly 20 million nonelderly people gained coverage over this period, including nearly 3 million Black people, over 5 million Hispanic people, and over 1 million Asian people. Among the nonelderly population, Hispanic individuals had the largest percentage point decrease in their uninsured rate, which fell from 32.6% to 19.1% between 2010 and 2016. Black, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) people also had larger percentage point decreases in their uninsured rates compared to their White counterparts over that period. These coverage gains reduced percentage point differences in uninsured rates between some groups of color and White people, but disparities persisted. Most groups of color remained more likely to be uninsured compared to White people. Moreover, the relative risk of being uninsured compared to White people did not improve for some groups. For example, Black people remained 1.5 times more likely to be uninsured than White people, and the uninsured rate among Hispanic people remained over 2.5 times higher than the rate for White people. Between 2016 and 2017, and continuing in 2018, coverage gains stalled and began reversing for some groups. Over this period there were small but statistically significant increases in the uninsured rates for White and Black people among the nonelderly population, which rose from 7.1% to 7.5% and from 10.7% to 11.5% respectively. Among children, there was also a statistically significant increase in the uninsured rate for Hispanic children, which rose from 7.6% to 8.0% between 2016 and 2018. Recent data further show that the number of uninsured continued to grow in 2019 despite improvements in household economic measures, and indicate the largest increases between 2018 and 2019 were among Hispanic people. The growth in the uninsured likely reflects a combination of factors, including rollback of outreach and enrollment efforts for ACA coverage, changes to Medicaid renewal processes, public charge policies, and elimination of the individual mandate penalty for health coverage. The ACA provides coverage options for people losing jobs amid the economic downturn associated with the pandemic. The economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic has led to historic levels of job loss. As people lose jobs, many may face disruptions in their health coverage since most people in the U.S. get their insurance through their job. Early KFF estimates of the implications of job loss found that nearly 27 million people were at risk of losing employer-sponsored health coverage due to job loss. Many of these people may have retained their coverage, at least in the short term, under furlough agreements or employers continuing benefits after layoffs. However, the health coverage options made available through the ACA have provided options for people losing employer-sponsored coverage who might otherwise become uninsured. Following enrollment declines in 2018 and 2019, recent data indicate Medicaid enrollment increased by 2.3 million or 3.2% from February 2020 to May 2020. Additionally, as of May 2020, enrollment data reveal nearly 500,000 people had gained Marketplace coverage through a special enrollment period (SEP), in most cases due to the loss of job-based coverage. The number of people gaining Marketplace coverage through a SEP in April 2020 was up 139% compared to April 2019 and up 43% in May 2020 compared to May 2019. People of color would likely experience the largest coverage losses if the ACA coverage options were eliminated. In the absence of the ACA, states would lose a pathway to cover adults without dependent children through Medicaid under federal rules. They also would lose access to the enhanced federal funding provided to cover expansion adults. As such, states would face challenges to maintain coverage for adults without dependent children and parents and many would likely roll back this coverage, eliminating a coverage option for millions of low-income parents and childless adults who do not have access to other affordable coverage. Moreover, without the federal subsidies, many people would not be able to afford private coverage. Since people of color experienced larger gains in coverage under the ACA compared to their White counterparts, they would likely also experience larger coverage losses if these coverage options were eliminated. Loss of the Medicaid expansion, in particular, would likely lead to disproportionate coverage losses among people of color, contributing to widening disparities in coverage, access to and use of care, and health outcomes. Overall, among the nonelderly population, roughly one in three Black, Hispanic, and AIAN people are covered by Medicaid compared to 15% of White people. Further, research shows that the ACA Medicaid expansion to low-income adults has helped to narrow racial disparities in health coverage, contributed to improvements in access to and use of care across groups, and narrowed disparities in health outcomes for Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly for measures of maternal health. In sum, the outcome of the pending legal challenge to overturn the ACA will have effects that extend broadly across the health care system and touch nearly all Americans. These effects could include widening racial disparities in health coverage and health care, at a time when there is a growing focus on prioritizing and advancing health equity and in the middle of a pandemic that has disproportionately affected people of color in the U.S. Without the ACA coverage expansions, people of color would likely face widening gaps in health insurance coverage, which would contribute to greater barriers to health care and worse health outcomes and leave them at increased risk for medical debt and financial challenges due to health care costs.'' | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6533-3 | null | 1,568 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to call attention to the important work done by the Children's Literacy Foundation--CLiF--a Waterbury Center, VT, based organization that was established in 1998 to address children's literacy in Vermont and New Hampshire. CLiF's founder, Duncan McDougall, set out to improve access to books and other learning resources for children in low-income, at-risk, and rural communities through a diverse set of programs, from story-telling events with authors to partnerships with elementary schools to distribute books to students. Over the last 22 years, the foundation has touched the lives of thousands of children in Vermont and New Hampshire. As schools in Vermont have opened their doors in a more limited capacity this fall, learning has become more difficult for many students, and access to books at home has become even more critical. Luckily, CLiF quickly moved to address this new challenge. Since March, the foundation has partnered with schools and libraries to fill some of the gap left by remote learning, distributing 40,000 books across our two States, and facilitating remote and in-person literacy workshops and story-telling events. Not only has this been beneficial for children, but it has helped parents as well, many of whom are simultaneously juggling teaching, and working full-time. As a father and a grandfather, I truly understand the importance of access to books in the home, and I am truly grateful for the efforts made by Mr. McDougall and the rest of the team at the Children's Literacy Foundation to make books more available for students in Vermont and New Hampshire. Reading is, as they say, fundamental, and I often think of my days visiting Kellogg Hubbard in Montpelier when I was growing up. Providing children the resources and tools to grow in their reading journeys is providing them a lifelong tool for success. The Children Literacy Foundation was recently featured in an article in Vermont's ``Seven Days.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``Waterbury Literacy Nonprofit Distributes 40,000 Kids' Books During Pandemic,'' be printed in the Record. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6592-2 | null | 1,569 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. UDALL. Madam President, 30 years ago this week, the Native American Languages Act, NALA, was signed into law. As we celebrate this momentous occasion, I would like to take some time to reflect. Native languages hold within them the culture, history, and resiliency of their communities, but they are not only crucial to the communities that speak them. Native languages have influenced our shared American history, contributed to our understanding of environmental stewardship, and made the very fabric of our Nation's identity richer. As just one notable example of the impact Native languages have had, in World War I and World War II, Native American soldiers known as Code Talkers used their Native languages to transmit coded tactical messages. Code Talkers were able to improve the speed of communications encryption during both wars, leading directly to American forces out-maneuvering enemy troops in numerous military operations. Yet prior to enactment of the Native American Languages Act in 1990, the United States' Federal policies and practices often resulted in suppression and extermination of Native languages. Recognizing that these past practices were in conflict with the principles of Tribal sovereignty and self-determination, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs sought to reshape Federal policy to better align with these principles. Under the leadership of Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman McCain, the paradigm-shifting Native American Languages Act became law, and the United States formally acknowledged the rights and freedoms of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native languages. Under the Native American Languages Act, Congress set out our current Federal Native language policy, declaring: ``It is the policy of the United States to-- ``(1) preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages; ``(2) allow exceptions to teacher certification requirements for Federal programs, and programs funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government, for instruction in Native American languages when such teacher certification requirements hinder the employment of qualified teachers who teach in Native American languages, and to encourage State and territorial governments to make similar exceptions; ``(3) encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium of instruction in order to encourage and support-- ``(A) Native American language survival, ``(B) educational opportunity, ``(C) increased student success and performance, ``(D) increased student awareness and knowledge of their culture and history, and ``(E) increased student and community pride; ``(4) encourage State and local education programs to work with Native American parents, educators, Indian tribes, and other Native American governing bodies in the implementation of programs to put this policy into effect; ``(5) recognize the right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies to use the Native American languages as a medium of instruction in all schools funded by the Secretary of the Interior; ``(6) fully recognize the inherent right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies, States, territories, and possessions of the United States to take action on, and give official status to, their Native American languages for the purpose of conducting their own business; ``(7) support the granting of comparable proficiency achieved through course work in a Native American language the same academic credit as comparable proficiency achieved through course work in a foreign language, with recognition of such Native American language proficiency by institutions of higher education as fulfilling foreign language entrance or degree requirements; and ``(8) encourage all institutions of elementary, secondary and higher education, where appropriate, to include Native American languages in the curriculum in the same manner as foreign languages and to grant proficiency in Native American languages the same full academic credit as proficiency in foreign languages.'' Over the last 30 years, catalyzed by the Native American Languages Act, Congress has promoted the maintenance and revitalization of Native languages. In 1992, Congress amended the act to establish a grant program at the Administration for Native Americans, ANA, to support Native language projects. During my time in Congress, I have worked to support Native American languages revitalization efforts. In 2006, as a U.S. Congressman for New Mexico, I helped lead a bipartisan bill to expand the ANA's grant program to bolster Native language immersion education programs. I also participated in an Education and Workforce Committee field hearing in my home State to hear from Native language advocates, which solidified support for the bill's passage in the House. Enacted as the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act, this legislation was named after an Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo traditional storyteller and Tewa language advocate who tragically passed away in 2006. As the current vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I had the honor of leading the most recent Esther Martinez Native American Languages Programs Reauthorization Act, which was signed into law this past December, to further enhance ANA's Native languages grant programs. I also convened a Native American Languages Listening Session last year and worked with Committee Chairman John Hoeven to hold an oversight hearing in 2018 to hear directly from Native language revitalization stakeholders across the country. At those events, we learned that, over the last three decades, great strides have been made to rectify past injustices and move toward support of Native languages. Sadly, despite our efforts, a number of Native languages are still endangered today. The loss of even one Native language would deal a significant blow to our shared American and global heritage. There is still more work to do. This anniversary is an important opportunity for Congress to reflect. I hope my colleagues will join me and recommit to fully upholding the policies set out in the Native American Languages Act. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. UDALL | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6593 | null | 1,570 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I rise to recognize a lifelong Nevadan and a friend to all he knew, Sean Higgins. Sean was a dedicated member of our community, an unmistakable presence, and a tireless champion and advocate for our gaming industry and small businesses in Nevada. He was born in Chicago in 1964, but raised in Las Vegas, 1 of 10 siblings--5 brothers and 5 sisters. His father, Dr. Gerald Higgins, was an orthopedic surgeon and doctor for the Rebels, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas football team. Sean graduated from Bishop Gorman High School. He left Nevada only briefly for his education, obtaining a degree in business administration from Southern Methodist University and a law degree from Santa Clara University School of Law. Sean and I grew up in Las Vegas when it was a much smaller town of 330,000 people, so perhaps our paths were always destined to cross. We met in the 6th grade when we attended Matt Kelly Elementary School together. Even then, Sean had a presence, with his distinctive voice and outgoing personality. He was friendly, charming--yes, even at 11 years old--and made you want to hang out with him. And so we did, spending time at pool parties and dancing to the band ``Hot Chocolate.'' Over the years our paths diverged, but his focus, like mine, was on returning to Las Vegas and the State we loved to practice law. Sean represented clients both large and small to State gaming regulators and government bodies across the Silver State. Everyone knew Sean for his gregarious nature and his booming voice, which made him a fierce advocate for championing the causes of his clients. He spent 17 years as general counsel of Herbst Gaming, a multijurisdictional casino operator in Nevada that became Affinity Gaming in 2011, and where his sister, Mary Beth Higgins, now serves as CEO. He served as executive-vice president of government affairs for Golden Entertainment,a casino company and slot machine route operator, and became a partner at the Gordon Silver Law firm. He became a small business owner himself, operating a popular gaming pub with two of his brothers and founding his own law firm, STH Strategies, in 2015. We reunited in our professional careers in Carson City when I was working for Governor Miller and he was advocating for taverns and gaming. The best part, he was still the same Sean Higgins I met in the 6th grade--friendly, charming, and yes, he made you want to hang out with him. So I did. For the last 20 years as our professional careers converged, I had the opportunity to watch Sean as he advocated for the town he loved and the businesses that made us a success, all the while smoking cigars and enjoying a good meal with the friends he cultivated along the way. I will miss my friend, and I am grateful I got to talk with him to say goodbye, to tell him that I loved him. During our conversation, his main concern was for his family. Sean loved Lynn and cherished his children Samantha and Connor. He was so proud of them. I experienced this firsthand when he came to Washington to visit Connor, who was working as an intern on the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works. In every conversation, Sean would talk about his amazing children. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering my friend and fellow Nevadan, Sean Higgins, for his advocacy and legal acumen. Sean will not soon be replaced in the Las Vegas community or in the gaming industry in Nevada. I offer my deepest condolences to his wife Lynn, his children Connor and Samantha, and the many friends who knew him well. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CORTEZ MASTO | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6594-2 | null | 1,571 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mrs. Murray) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 762 Whereas the COVID-19 crisis exacerbates existing vulnerabilities for women and girls and has an outsized effect on health, safety, and livelihoods for marginalized communities; Whereas it is estimated that the disruption of sexual and reproductive health care services and supply chains caused by the COVID-19 crisis caused an estimated 49,000,000 women to stop using contraceptives between April and October 2020, likely resulting in approximately 7,000,000 unintended pregnancies, 1,700,000 major obstetric complications, 28,000 maternal deaths, 168,000 newborn deaths, and 3,300,000 unsafe abortions; Whereas lockdowns, quarantines, and other movement restrictions related to COVID-19 have disrupted access to legal and social services, as well as access to counseling, safe shelters, and medical treatment, exacerbating vulnerabilities for women and girls; Whereas gender-based violence such as domestic violence, child marriage, and female genital mutilation has increased, and is expected to continue to increase, as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, including-- (1) an estimated 31,000,000 more gender-based violence cases between April and October 2020; (2) an additional 13,000,000 child marriages by 2030; and (3) an increase of approximately 2,000,000 cases of female genital mutilation between 2020 and 2030; Whereas women play significant roles in the health care workforce, comprising 70 percent of health care workers globally, yet often are not prioritized for the receipt of personal protective equipment, disproportionately exposing them to contracting COVID-19; Whereas women and girls perform 3 times the amount of unpaid care work in homes and in their communities as men, a burden that has increased during the COVID-19 crisis as women and girls are disproportionately responsible for caring for sick and elderly family and community members and children who are out of school, limiting the ability of women and girls to perform income-generating work, pursue education or skills building, or avoid exposure to COVID-19; Whereas, globally, women living in poverty will endure specific economic effects as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, largely due to the overrepresentation of those women in the informal economy, the increase in their unpaid care burdens, and the particular hardships facing female entrepreneurs, such as-- (1) loss of jobs or pressure to turn to exploitative work, as women workers dominate in industries most affected by layoffs caused by the COVID-19 crisis, including hospitality, childcare, and tourism, and comprise 92 percent of individuals in the informal sector, which lacks social and legal protections in most countries; (2) loss of business, as market closures, disruptions in global trading, and the collapse of supply chains have disproportionate effects on female-led businesses and female farmers, and enduring gaps in financial inclusion will have significant ramifications as women entrepreneurs continue to be considered high risk for bank services, formal loans, and credit; (3) financial insecurity, as women have much lower, if any, pensions, retirement savings, or other assets to mitigate shocks as compared to men; and (4) loss of necessary income that female-headed households depend on, such as remittances, which the World Bank expects will decrease by nearly 20 percent in 2020; Whereas the COVID-19 crisis will uniquely affect women in agriculture, who provide more than 43 percent of the agricultural labor around the world and more than 60 percent of such labor in Africa yet whose ability to harvest, sell, and buy food and other products necessary for their food security and nutrition will worsen due to travel restrictions related to the crisis, ongoing discrimination in access to agricultural inputs and markets, and wage gaps and disproportionate unpaid care burdens for female farmers; Whereas food insecurity will have unique effects on the nutrition and health of women and girls, who already comprise 60 percent of individuals experiencing hunger in the world, often rely on getting at least 1 nutritious meal each day from feeding programs at schools that may be shut down due to the COVID-19 crisis, and face shortages in nutritious food and nutrients given social norms that dictate that women and girls eat last and least when food is scarce; Whereas girls, particularly adolescent girls, will be especially affected by the closures of schools resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, and it estimated that, as of March 2020, nearly 743,000,000 girls, not including the approximately 132,000,000 girls who were already out of school before the onset of the crisis, are out of school due to such closures; Whereas closures of schools due to the COVID-19 crisis will decrease the ability of girls to access education and skills building, increase the exposure of girls to gender-based violence, such as child marriage, exacerbate the vulnerability of girls to early pregnancy and childbirth- related complications, and impede access of girls to information about the prevention of COVID-19, protection services, and pathways to report abuse; Whereas the COVID-19 crisis will place particular burdens on women and girls in humanitarian emergencies given challenges including overcrowded conditions, restrictions on travel and movement, already strained health, hygiene, and sanitation infrastructure, food shortages and malnutrition, already heightened exposure to gender-based violence, systematic and targeted attacks on health infrastructure and aid workers by parties to conflicts, politicization of aid and service delivery, and restricted humanitarian access, all of which exacerbates the spread and effect of infectious diseases; Whereas the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the Department of State have expressed concern about an increase in human trafficking and smuggling as traffickers take advantage of increased vulnerabilities and chaos during the COVID-19 crisis; Whereas the diversion of resources and services away from existing primary health care needs to address the COVID-19 crisis and contain the spread of COVID-19 will have particular effects on women and girls, including disruptions in the provision of life-saving health services unrelated to COVID-19, such as maternal health care and sexual and reproductive health services, and the loss of critical services and support to respond to gender-based violence; Whereas the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan coordinated by the United Nations is only 17 percent funded, leaving significant gaps in the response to immediate health and non-health needs of women and girls and other vulnerable populations, and ongoing humanitarian response plans, identified as a top priority by the United Nations given that people targeted in those plans will be the most affected by the direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 crisis, remain only 17.3 percent funded; Whereas estimates show that, globally, women are included in only 24 percent of national response plans for the COVID- 19 crisis, and women and girls have been largely excluded from leadership and decision making related to responses to the crisis, resulting in response measures that may not fully account for how COVID-19 affects women and girls; and Whereas humanitarian exemptions to sanctions and counterterrorism measures are vital for ensuring states and principled humanitarian actors are able to reach vulnerable women and girls with efficient, needs-based assistance, including COVID-19 response activities consistent with obligations under international humanitarian law, regardless of the location of those women and girls: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) reaffirms the critical importance of gender balance and inclusivity in bodies responsible for coordination and decision making related to the COVID-19 crisis, including in structures and task forces of the United States Government charged with developing policies and responses to the crisis; (2) promotes integrating a gender lens throughout the response to the COVID-19 crisis by analyzing and tracking the effect of and response to the crisis on gender, including gathering evidence from data that is disaggregated by gender, age, and other specific variables; (3) supports measures to ensure that life-saving health services including sexual and reproductive health and gender- based violence prevention and response are well resourced and supported, including within the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan coordinated by the United Nations, and that funding earmarked for those services is not reduced, canceled, or diverted to other COVID-19 response activities; (4) supports measures to ensure the continuation of adequate food and nutrition security for women and girls around the world affected by COVID-19, including women smallholder farmers and other women working in agriculture, in light of the unique challenges described in the preamble of this resolution; (5) reinforces the need to ensure that short-term relief programming and longer-term economic strategies address the specific effects of COVID-19 on women globally, especially lower income, migrant, displaced, and other marginalized women; (6) urges the executive branch to uphold the rights of crisis-affected and forcibly displaced populations, including women and girls, further affected by COVID-19, by promoting compliance with international humanitarian and human rights legal obligations and engaging parties to conflicts to ensure unhindered access to health care, medical supplies, and other vital aid and protection; (7) supports robust funding contributions by the United States for the international response to the COVID-19 crisis in addition to further funding for ongoing humanitarian appeals in support of vulnerable women and girls affected by COVID-19 and underlying emergencies; and (8) commits to continuously assess and eliminate any impediment to the delivery of and access to humanitarian assistance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6600 | null | 1,572 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Daines, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Tester) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 764 Whereas more than 2,100,000 individuals serve as members of the Armed Forces of the United States; Whereas several hundred thousand members of the Armed Forces rotate each year through deployments to more than 150 countries in every region of the world; Whereas more than 2,000,000 members of the Armed Forces have deployed to the area of operations of the United States Central Command since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Whereas the United States is kept strong and free by the loyal military personnel from the total force, which is comprised of the regular components, the National Guard, and the Reserves, who protect the precious heritage of the United States through their declarations and actions; Whereas the United States remains committed to providing the fullest possible accounting for personnel missing from past conflicts ranging from World War II through current day conflicts; Whereas members of the Armed Forces serving at home and abroad have courageously answered the call to duty to defend the ideals of the United States and to preserve peace and freedom around the world; Whereas members of the Armed Forces continue to serve and protect the people of the United States by making deployments in the midst of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; Whereas the United States remains committed to easing the transition from deployment abroad to service at home for members of the Armed Forces and the families of the members; Whereas members of the Armed Forces personify the virtues of patriotism, service, duty, courage, and sacrifice; Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces make important and significant sacrifices for the United States; and Whereas the Senate has designated October 26 as the ``Day of the Deployed'' since 2011: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates October 26, 2020, as the ``Day of the Deployed''; (2) honors the deployed members of the Armed Forces of the United States and the families of the members; (3) calls on the people of the United States to reflect on the service of those members of the Armed Forces, wherever the members serve, past, present, and future; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe the Day of the Deployed with appropriate ceremonies and activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6601-2 | null | 1,573 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | ``NATIONAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH'' Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Grassley) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 763 Whereas initiation of substance use during adolescence is associated with substance use and misuse in adulthood; Whereas, in 2019, more than 8,000,000 people in the United States aged 12 and older used a controlled substance for the first time; Whereas, in 2019, an estimated 35,000,000 people in the United States aged 12 and older used an illicit drug, including cocaine and methamphetamine; Whereas more than 20,000,000 people in the United States aged 12 and older had a substance use disorder in 2019, including more than 8,000,000 individuals who had an illicit drug use disorder; Whereas, in 2019, an estimated 4,200,000 people in the United States aged 12 and older received some form of substance use disorder treatment; Whereas, in 2019, an estimated 72,000 lives in the United States were lost to largely preventable drug overdoses; Whereas illicit drug use and the misuse of prescription opioids costs the United States $271,500,000,000 annually; Whereas Federal funding to prevent substance use and misuse was cut by nearly 34 percent between fiscal years 2009 and 2020; Whereas every dollar invested in substance use and misuse prevention programs can provide a savings of up to $20 in substance use and misuse treatment, health care, and criminal justice costs; Whereas Congress has sought to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services through passage of, among other measures, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-198; 130 Stat. 695); Whereas substance use and misuse prevention and treatment organizations in the United States recognize October as ``National Substance Abuse Prevention Month''; Whereas October 24, 2020, is the second anniversary of the enactment of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (Public Law 115-271; 132 Stat. 3894); and Whereas the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has increased social isolation for many people in the United States, which can lead to a greater use and misuse of legal and illegal substances: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports effective programs to prevent substance use and misuse, including community-based prevention programs such as the Drug-Free Communities Support Program; (2) recognizes that certain substances are being misused at higher rates among adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially due to the stress and social isolation associated with the public health emergency; (3) supports additional research and expanded access to effective programs to prevent substance use and misuse during the COVID-19 pandemic; (4) supports programs to help stem the drug addiction and overdose epidemic in the United States; and (5) supports the designation of October 2020 as ``National Substance Abuse Prevention Month''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6601 | null | 1,574 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. Rubio) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: S. Res. 767 Whereas on September 28, 2020, the Tampa Bay Lightning (referred to in this preamble as the ``Lightning'') won the 2020 National Hockey League Stanley Cup Final; Whereas the 2020 Stanley Cup Final is the second Stanley Cup Final won by the Lightning in the 29 years that the franchise has competed in the National Hockey League; Whereas the Lightning won the 2020 Eastern Conference title, and the Prince of Wales Trophy, won for the third time by the franchise, by defeating the Columbus Blue Jackets, the Boston Bruins, and the New York Islanders to advance to the Stanley Cup Final; Whereas the Lightning defeated the 2020 Western Conference champion, the Dallas Stars, in the Stanley Cup Final, clinching the series with 4 wins and only 2 losses; Whereas the Lightning showed resilience and sacrifice during the COVID-19 pandemic by competing in the delayed playoff tournament in secure zones, sequestered from outsiders for 2 months and away from family; Whereas millions of fans watched the Lightning during the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs as the franchise won the Stanley Cup Final for the second time; Whereas Lightning defenseman Victor Hedman-- (1) led all defensemen in the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs with 10 goals and 12 assists; and (2) won the Conn Smythe Trophy, awarded to the most valuable player in the playoffs; Whereas Lightning right winger Nikita Kucherov-- (1) was the leader in points and assists in the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs; and (2) set a new Lightning franchise record for most points in a single postseason; and Whereas the following entire Lightning roster contributed to the Stanley Cup victory: Nikita Kucherov, Steven Stamkos, Brayden Point, Victor Hedman, Alexander Killorn, Anthony Cirelli, Ondrej Palat, Mikhail Sergachev, Kevin Shattenkirk, Tyler Johnson, Yanni Gourde, Patrick Maroon, Cedric Paquette, Carter Verhaeghe, Erik Cernak, Ryan McDonagh, Mathieu Joseph, Jan Rutta, Mitchell Stephens, Braydon Coburn, Andrei Vasilevskiy, Luke Schenn, Barclay Goodrow, Zach Bogosian, Blake Coleman, Alexander Volkov, Curtis McElhinney, and Scott Wedgewood: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the Tampa Bay Lightning, and the loyal fans of the Tampa Bay Lightning, for becoming the 2020 National Hockey League Stanley Cup champions; and (2) respectfully directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the chairman and governor of the Tampa Bay Lightning, Jeff Vinik; (B) the vice president and general manager of the Tampa Bay Lightning, Julien BriseBois; and (C) the head coach of the Tampa Bay Lightning, Jon Cooper. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6602-3 | null | 1,575 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Murphy, Mr. King, Mr. Boozman, and Mrs. Capito) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 765 Whereas dyslexia is-- (1) defined as an unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader; and (2) most commonly caused by a difficulty in phonological processing (the appreciation of the individual sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability of an individual to speak, read, spell, and, often, the ability to learn a second language; Whereas the First Step Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-391) included a definition of dyslexia as part of the requirement of the Act to screen inmates for dyslexia upon intake in Federal prisons; Whereas the definition of dyslexia in section 3635 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of the First Step Act of 2018, is the first and only definition of dyslexia in a Federal statute; Whereas dyslexia is the most common learning disability and affects 80 to 90 percent of all individuals with a learning disability; Whereas dyslexia is persistent and highly prevalent, affecting as many as 1 out of every 5 individuals; Whereas dyslexia is a paradox, in that an individual with dyslexia may have both-- (1) weaknesses in decoding that result in difficulties with accurate or fluent word recognition; and (2) strengths in higher-level cognitive functions, such as reasoning, critical thinking, concept formation, and problem solving; Whereas great progress has been made in understanding dyslexia on a scientific level, including the epidemiology and cognitive and neurobiological bases of dyslexia; Whereas the achievement gap between typical readers and dyslexic readers occurs as early as first grade; and Whereas early screening for, and early diagnosis of, dyslexia are critical for ensuring that individuals with dyslexia receive focused, evidence-based intervention that leads to fluent reading, the promotion of self-awareness and self-empowerment, and the provision of necessary accommodations that ensure success in school and in life: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) calls on Congress, schools, and State and local educational agencies to recognize that dyslexia has significant educational implications that must be addressed; and (2) designates October 2020 as ``National Dyslexia Awareness Month''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-10-25-pt2-PgS6602 | null | 1,576 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-5507. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and Management Staff, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Postmarketing Safety Reports for Approved New Animal Drugs; Electronic Submission Requirements; Correction [Docket No.: FDA-2017-N- 6381] (RIN: 0910-AH51) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5508. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Air Quality Control, VOC Definition [EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0170; FRL- 10013-41-Region 4] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5509. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; Consumer Products Regulations [EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0213; FRL- 10013-66-Region 9] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5510. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; Feather River Air Quality Management District [EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0180; FRL-10012-89-Region 9] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5511. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Georgia: Permit Requirements [EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0071; FRL-10013-22-Region 4] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5512. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; VOC RACT for the Wisconsin Portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin Area [EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0030; EPA- R05-OAR-2020-0101; FRL-10011-74-Region 5] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5513. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Amendments Related to Marine Diesel Engine Emission Standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0638; FRL-10013- 36-OAR] (RIN: 2060-AU30) received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5514. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits [EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0449; FRL-10013-14-Region 9] received September 30, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5515. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Commonwealth of Kentucky: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program [EPA-R04- | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-10-27-pt1-PgH5709-6 | null | 1,577 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-5583. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export- Import Bank, transmitting a report involving U.S. exports to various countries, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(b)(3); July 31, 1945, ch. 341, Sec. 2 (as added by Public Law 102-266, Sec. 102); (106 Stat. 95); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5584. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting that, as a result of continued consequences of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a renewal, effective October 23, 2020, that a public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020, nationwide, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 247d(a); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, Sec. 319(a) (as amended by Public Law 107-188, Sec. 144(a)); (116 Stat. 630); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5585. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo that was declared in Executive Order 13413 of October 27, 2006, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5586. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Sudan that was declared in Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5587. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to South Sudan that was declared in Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5588. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities that was declared in Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5589. A letter from the Secretary, Department of State, transmitting a letter regarding an opportunity to ensure compensation is finally provided to victims of the 1998 al- Qa'ida-backed terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, including U.S. national victims who have long advocated for settlement of their claims; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5590. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting four (4) notifications of the designation of acting officer or discontinuation of service in acting role, 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. EC-5591. A letter from the Chairman and Chief Executive and Administrative Officer, Federal Labor Relations Authority, transmitting the 64th Semiannual Report of the Federal Labor Relations Authority Inspector General for the period April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5592. A letter from the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting the Board's final list of activities performed by federal government sources for the executive agency that are not inherently governmental functions for 2020, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 501 note; Public Law 105-270, Sec. 2(c)(1)(A); (112 Stat. 2382); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5593. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program 2019 Report to Congress, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 4730(6)(A); Public Law 115-282, Sec. 903(g)(6)(A); (132 Stat. 4360); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5594. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Child Welfare Outcomes 2017: Report to Congress, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 679b(a)(5); Public Law 105-89, Sec. 203(a); (111 Stat. 2127); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgH5727-6 | null | 1,578 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-5583. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export- Import Bank, transmitting a report involving U.S. exports to various countries, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 635(b)(3); July 31, 1945, ch. 341, Sec. 2 (as added by Public Law 102-266, Sec. 102); (106 Stat. 95); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5584. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting that, as a result of continued consequences of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a renewal, effective October 23, 2020, that a public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020, nationwide, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 247d(a); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, Sec. 319(a) (as amended by Public Law 107-188, Sec. 144(a)); (116 Stat. 630); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5585. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo that was declared in Executive Order 13413 of October 27, 2006, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5586. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Sudan that was declared in Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5587. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to South Sudan that was declared in Executive Order 13664 of April 3, 2014, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5588. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities that was declared in Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5589. A letter from the Secretary, Department of State, transmitting a letter regarding an opportunity to ensure compensation is finally provided to victims of the 1998 al- Qa'ida-backed terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, including U.S. national victims who have long advocated for settlement of their claims; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5590. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting four (4) notifications of the designation of acting officer or discontinuation of service in acting role, 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. EC-5591. A letter from the Chairman and Chief Executive and Administrative Officer, Federal Labor Relations Authority, transmitting the 64th Semiannual Report of the Federal Labor Relations Authority Inspector General for the period April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5592. A letter from the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting the Board's final list of activities performed by federal government sources for the executive agency that are not inherently governmental functions for 2020, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 501 note; Public Law 105-270, Sec. 2(c)(1)(A); (112 Stat. 2382); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5593. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program 2019 Report to Congress, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 4730(6)(A); Public Law 115-282, Sec. 903(g)(6)(A); (132 Stat. 4360); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-5594. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Child Welfare Outcomes 2017: Report to Congress, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 679b(a)(5); Public Law 105-89, Sec. 203(a); (111 Stat. 2127); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgH5727-6 | null | 1,579 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. SCOTT of Virginia: Committee on Education and Labor. H.R. 8294. A bill to amend the National Apprenticeship Act and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre- apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, with an amendment (Rept. 116-567, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgH5728 | null | 1,580 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. SCOTT of Virginia: Committee on Education and Labor. H.R. 8294. A bill to amend the National Apprenticeship Act and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre- apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, with an amendment (Rept. 116-567, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgH5728 | null | 1,581 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, November is National Adoption Month. Each November, families across the country finalize adoptions and celebrate the creation of new families and connections. On National Adoption Day, which is celebrated on the Saturday before Thanksgiving, a special effort is made to finalize as many pending adoptions as possible. Last year, over 4,000 adoptions were finalized on that day. While I am sure that this day will look a little different this year due to the coronavirus, I am confident that family courts and child welfare agencies will still make it a special day for many, many families--happy families--because they will be able to bring new ones into their families. The pandemic has created significant challenges for the children and families in our child welfare system. With travel restrictions and limits on visitors in hospitals, adoptive parents are meeting their children for the first time ever over video chat instead of in person. Kids in foster care are having to wait longer for placements, and foster parents are facing the added stress of school closures. Court proceedings are taking place over Zoom. Despite the challenges, both new challenges and old challenges that can accompany adoption, parents in Iowa and across the country are still making the choice to open their hearts and homes to children in need. Congress has worked in the past to reduce barriers that would-be adoptive parents face. I will continue my efforts of making sure adoption remains an option for children in foster care who can't be reunited with their families, women who are facing unexpected pregnancies, and all parents who are willing and able to provide safe and loving homes for kids in need. There were over 100,000 children in the foster care system who were waiting for adoption in 2019. That 100,000 was approximately one-fourth of the number of kids in foster care. Congress must work in a bipartisan way, as it has for many years, to make sure adoption can become a reality, not just a dream, for all of these kids. We must also make sure that child welfare agencies have the tools and flexibilities they need to serve the families in their communities. For years in the Senate, I have worked to elevate the voices of youth in the foster care system. These young people are their own best advocates, and they can tell you that the thing they want the most is a caring and loving family and a permanent home. What would you expect from any of these young people who are moved from home to home maybe two or three times in a given year? As I continue to work in Congress toward the goal of helping all children find their forever families, I will always keep the best interests of children at the forefront. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6615-5 | null | 1,582 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Coronavirus While the country prepares for a change in administration, it must also brace for the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the weekend, the United States recorded its 10 millionth case. We are now confirming nearly 100,000 new cases of COVID per day, on track to eclipse more than a million cases per week. As exhausted and impatient as we all are for our lives and livelihoods to return to normal, experts are warning us that the worst phase is still ahead. The quickest way to turn the tide, crush the virus, and get back to normal is to do what we should have been doing all along: take the virus seriously, listen to the scientists, and dedicate the necessary resources to get the job done. President-Elect Biden is already preparing to do just that. Today, he named several health experts and scientific advisers to serve on a COVID-19 task force. It sends the right signal that while the President-elect will not assume office for another few months, his administration will hit the ground running, and its policy on COVID-19 will refreshingly be dictated by facts and by science. It is a major turning point that soon we will have an administration that actually acknowledges that this is a healthcare crisis; that knows our economy won't fully recover until we solve it. I am confident that a Biden administration will do that, but Congress must play its part too. Nearly 15 million Americans have lost health insurance through their employer. Democrats have a solution to that problem. Let's get it done and make sure those families have health coverage. Medicaid Programs across the country are experiencing a huge influx of new enrollees, while State budgets struggle to bear the added costs. The Heroes Act ensures that Medicaid is strengthened and secured for the duration of this pandemic. Let's get that done too. And today, we received news that the entire world has been waiting for. A U.S. company has developed a vaccine for COVID-19 that, according to the preliminary research and the news reports, is 90 percent effective. The FDA said it would approve a vaccine that was 50 percent effective. So while the FDA needs to review the vaccine, to have a vaccine that is 90 percent effective is about as good as it gets. We Democrats will do everything we can to make sure this vaccine or anyvaccine is distributed quickly, fairly, equitably, and the challenge is now one of scale and one of delivery. Congress should fund a national vaccination program, and the administration, whether it is the Trump administration or the Biden administration, must do everything to reach minority and underserved communities, combat vaccine hesitancy, and ensure that the vaccines are free to everyone. This will be a massive and complex undertaking unlike anything that our country has seen, and we must all work together--from the President to Congress, down to local community health departments--to ensure that it gets done right and it gets done fairly and it gets done equitably. So while the incoming administration prepares to take on the surge of COVID-19, Congress should pass a strong, comprehensive COVID relief bill that actually meets the needs of the American people. When it comes to health care, education, testing, tracing, unemployment benefits, and many other critical issues, this Republican majority has proposed totally inadequate solutions. As the disease surges across our country once again, there is no time for inadequate solutions. I hope, now that the election is behind us, our colleagues are ready to come together in a search for an adequate bipartisan solution rather than the partisan, stunt-voting legislating we have suffered these past few months. 2020 Elections Now I must spend a moment on something that will garner too much attention over the next few weeks: baseless claims by the President and his supporters that there has been widespread voter fraud and that the election was somehow rigged or stolen from President Trump. That kind of rhetoric is extremely dangerous and extremely poisonous to our democracy. As in any campaign, the President has a right to bring legal challenges or request recounts where State law allows. However, there is no legal right to file frivolous claims. Lawsuits must have a basis in facts and evidence. And make no mistake, there has been no evidence of any significant or widespread voter fraud. Joe Biden won this election fair and square. The margins of his victory are growing by the day, and former President George W. Bush, commendably, acknowledged that fact when he congratulated President-Elect Biden and Vice President-Elect Harris on their victory. Now Republican leaders in Congress should also do the right thing. Republican leaders must unequivocally condemn the President's rhetoric and work to ensure the peaceful transfer of power on January 20. I have been heartened to see a few of my Republican colleagues--it is three, I believe--congratulate the winning ticket, but too many, including the Republican leader, have been silent or sympathetic to the President's fantasies. Even some nonpartisan members of the current administration have refused to move forward with the formal process for the incoming administration. According to the Washington Post, the Administrator of the General Services Administration has declined to sign a letter allowing President-elect Joe Biden's transition team to formally begin its work. It does not matter whether the President is happy about the results of the election. The peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark--the bedrock--of our democracy, and it must proceed unimpeded. The GSA Administrator should sign the paperwork immediately in order to allow the important work of the Presidential transition to proceed. America remains in the middle of a worsening health and economic crisis, and there is no excuse--none--for the outgoing administration to impede the new administration's preparations to deal with these urgent challenges. There is no law or requirement that President Trump concede the election or leave the Office of the Presidency with grace, but as history prepares to write the final few sentences on the Trump Presidency, it will surely note how this President and his Republican allies here in Congress treated our democracy on his way out the door. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6617-3 | null | 1,583 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Coronavirus Madam President, COVID-19 did not take a day off for the election. While election week was brewing and all of us were glued to our television screens,most of the country was unaware of the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic was worsening. Cases of the virus and hospitalizations in the United States have been spiking for weeks now. On Saturday, we hit the highest daily total of new cases--126,000 new cases on Saturday. In Illinois, we are approaching half a million cases. The State has tragically seen more than 10,000 of our neighbors and friends die from this COVID-19. The country is on pace to hit 1 million new cases every week by the end of this year. This is disastrous, and it demands action. Thankfully, President-Elect Biden has announced an extraordinary task force of respected public health and medical experts--truth tellers, real leaders. Like the NIH's Dr. Fauci, I trust Dr. Kessler, David Kessler, whom I have known for decades; Dr. Morita, who served so admirably in the city of Chicago; Dr. Atul Gawande, one of my real heroes in medicine today--I have spent a lot of money on his books and have never regretted a penny of it; and former Surgeon General Murthy--what an extraordinarily talented man he is and the others who are part of the team. Yet we need to continue to stay safe and remember that this virus is not anywhere near being gone. There are 10 million Americans who have now contracted the virus, and we have lost 238,000 American lives. My heart goes out to everyone who has lost someone in this pandemic and to those who are still suffering due to this virus. In addition to the health and safety of the American people, we have also been struggling to deal with real economic uncertainty, job losses, food insecurity, stress, and childcare. It is a long list. Despite these urgent needs of families, small businesses, workers, health providers, and unemployed Americans across the country, unfortunately, the leadership in this Chamber has dragged its feet and offered only a few very weak measures that barely address the overwhelming needs of this Nation. This is why Americans have not received another round of economic impact payments, rental assistance, or enhanced unemployment assistance, and it is why hospitals are not receiving additional funding. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats passed the Heroes Act in May--a $3.4 trillion relief package. After negotiating with the White House, they then passed the second version of that--a $2.2 trillion package. Unfortunately, the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell, refused to consider either of these proposals and even refused to attend the negotiating sessions. The last Senate Republican response was inadequate--$500 billion. It may seem like a fortune until you look at a nation in the midst of a pandemic and at an economy struggling to survive. If the Republicans are serious about negotiating a real package--if they want to demonstrate to the American people what leadership looks like, with real solutions for real problems that families face--then I call on Senator McConnell to show up to the negotiating table and give up these rogue attempts to pass empty, halfhearted measures. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has repeatedly warned of potentially dire economic consequences if additional fiscal relief is delayed. As hiring begins to pick up in a few sectors--thank goodness--too many populations, including African-American workers, Hispanic men, and women with children, are being left behind. We need to focus on helping the American people through this pandemic. We need to do it now. This is the so-called lameduck session between the results of an election and the swearing-in of a new Congress and President, but shame on us if we don't use this time together in Washington as an opportunity to do more than vote for a random Republican judge. Can't we roll up our sleeves on a bipartisan basis and realize what is really happening across America as this pandemic heats up and more Americans die every day? We need at least $75 billion for additional testing and contact tracing to slow the spread of COVID-19--far more than the meager $16 billion that was offered in the Republican measure. We also want to put $57 billion in for hospitals, clinics, and health providers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was on the phone with these administrators. They are desperate. We are going to lose hospitals across this country and, I fear, maybe even in our own State if we don't step forward and do something. What is wrong with increasing, at least to some degree, the amount available for food stamps--the so-called SNAP program--so that hundreds of millions of Americans who go to food banks to survive get a helping hand? Is that too much to ask in the month of Thanksgiving and in the month of Christmas? We must also include more economic support for households through a second round of economic impact payments and through reinstating enhanced unemployment benefits. I continue to hear about struggles from hospitals that are on the brink, from workers who have lost their jobs, and from small business owners who are desperately trying to keep their heads above water. Unfortunately, the Senate continues to waste time on proposals that place the needs of Big Business ahead of the needs of small families. History will judge this body on how we respond--not on the best speech given on the floor--or on how we failed to respond to the worst pandemic in a century and the deepest recession in 75 years. The American people are looking for leadership. We cannot let them down | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6620-2 | null | 1,584 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Coronavirus Madam President, COVID-19 did not take a day off for the election. While election week was brewing and all of us were glued to our television screens,most of the country was unaware of the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic was worsening. Cases of the virus and hospitalizations in the United States have been spiking for weeks now. On Saturday, we hit the highest daily total of new cases--126,000 new cases on Saturday. In Illinois, we are approaching half a million cases. The State has tragically seen more than 10,000 of our neighbors and friends die from this COVID-19. The country is on pace to hit 1 million new cases every week by the end of this year. This is disastrous, and it demands action. Thankfully, President-Elect Biden has announced an extraordinary task force of respected public health and medical experts--truth tellers, real leaders. Like the NIH's Dr. Fauci, I trust Dr. Kessler, David Kessler, whom I have known for decades; Dr. Morita, who served so admirably in the city of Chicago; Dr. Atul Gawande, one of my real heroes in medicine today--I have spent a lot of money on his books and have never regretted a penny of it; and former Surgeon General Murthy--what an extraordinarily talented man he is and the others who are part of the team. Yet we need to continue to stay safe and remember that this virus is not anywhere near being gone. There are 10 million Americans who have now contracted the virus, and we have lost 238,000 American lives. My heart goes out to everyone who has lost someone in this pandemic and to those who are still suffering due to this virus. In addition to the health and safety of the American people, we have also been struggling to deal with real economic uncertainty, job losses, food insecurity, stress, and childcare. It is a long list. Despite these urgent needs of families, small businesses, workers, health providers, and unemployed Americans across the country, unfortunately, the leadership in this Chamber has dragged its feet and offered only a few very weak measures that barely address the overwhelming needs of this Nation. This is why Americans have not received another round of economic impact payments, rental assistance, or enhanced unemployment assistance, and it is why hospitals are not receiving additional funding. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats passed the Heroes Act in May--a $3.4 trillion relief package. After negotiating with the White House, they then passed the second version of that--a $2.2 trillion package. Unfortunately, the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell, refused to consider either of these proposals and even refused to attend the negotiating sessions. The last Senate Republican response was inadequate--$500 billion. It may seem like a fortune until you look at a nation in the midst of a pandemic and at an economy struggling to survive. If the Republicans are serious about negotiating a real package--if they want to demonstrate to the American people what leadership looks like, with real solutions for real problems that families face--then I call on Senator McConnell to show up to the negotiating table and give up these rogue attempts to pass empty, halfhearted measures. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has repeatedly warned of potentially dire economic consequences if additional fiscal relief is delayed. As hiring begins to pick up in a few sectors--thank goodness--too many populations, including African-American workers, Hispanic men, and women with children, are being left behind. We need to focus on helping the American people through this pandemic. We need to do it now. This is the so-called lameduck session between the results of an election and the swearing-in of a new Congress and President, but shame on us if we don't use this time together in Washington as an opportunity to do more than vote for a random Republican judge. Can't we roll up our sleeves on a bipartisan basis and realize what is really happening across America as this pandemic heats up and more Americans die every day? We need at least $75 billion for additional testing and contact tracing to slow the spread of COVID-19--far more than the meager $16 billion that was offered in the Republican measure. We also want to put $57 billion in for hospitals, clinics, and health providers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was on the phone with these administrators. They are desperate. We are going to lose hospitals across this country and, I fear, maybe even in our own State if we don't step forward and do something. What is wrong with increasing, at least to some degree, the amount available for food stamps--the so-called SNAP program--so that hundreds of millions of Americans who go to food banks to survive get a helping hand? Is that too much to ask in the month of Thanksgiving and in the month of Christmas? We must also include more economic support for households through a second round of economic impact payments and through reinstating enhanced unemployment benefits. I continue to hear about struggles from hospitals that are on the brink, from workers who have lost their jobs, and from small business owners who are desperately trying to keep their heads above water. Unfortunately, the Senate continues to waste time on proposals that place the needs of Big Business ahead of the needs of small families. History will judge this body on how we respond--not on the best speech given on the floor--or on how we failed to respond to the worst pandemic in a century and the deepest recession in 75 years. The American people are looking for leadership. We cannot let them down | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6620-2 | null | 1,585 |
formal | food stamps | null | racist | Coronavirus Madam President, COVID-19 did not take a day off for the election. While election week was brewing and all of us were glued to our television screens,most of the country was unaware of the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic was worsening. Cases of the virus and hospitalizations in the United States have been spiking for weeks now. On Saturday, we hit the highest daily total of new cases--126,000 new cases on Saturday. In Illinois, we are approaching half a million cases. The State has tragically seen more than 10,000 of our neighbors and friends die from this COVID-19. The country is on pace to hit 1 million new cases every week by the end of this year. This is disastrous, and it demands action. Thankfully, President-Elect Biden has announced an extraordinary task force of respected public health and medical experts--truth tellers, real leaders. Like the NIH's Dr. Fauci, I trust Dr. Kessler, David Kessler, whom I have known for decades; Dr. Morita, who served so admirably in the city of Chicago; Dr. Atul Gawande, one of my real heroes in medicine today--I have spent a lot of money on his books and have never regretted a penny of it; and former Surgeon General Murthy--what an extraordinarily talented man he is and the others who are part of the team. Yet we need to continue to stay safe and remember that this virus is not anywhere near being gone. There are 10 million Americans who have now contracted the virus, and we have lost 238,000 American lives. My heart goes out to everyone who has lost someone in this pandemic and to those who are still suffering due to this virus. In addition to the health and safety of the American people, we have also been struggling to deal with real economic uncertainty, job losses, food insecurity, stress, and childcare. It is a long list. Despite these urgent needs of families, small businesses, workers, health providers, and unemployed Americans across the country, unfortunately, the leadership in this Chamber has dragged its feet and offered only a few very weak measures that barely address the overwhelming needs of this Nation. This is why Americans have not received another round of economic impact payments, rental assistance, or enhanced unemployment assistance, and it is why hospitals are not receiving additional funding. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats passed the Heroes Act in May--a $3.4 trillion relief package. After negotiating with the White House, they then passed the second version of that--a $2.2 trillion package. Unfortunately, the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell, refused to consider either of these proposals and even refused to attend the negotiating sessions. The last Senate Republican response was inadequate--$500 billion. It may seem like a fortune until you look at a nation in the midst of a pandemic and at an economy struggling to survive. If the Republicans are serious about negotiating a real package--if they want to demonstrate to the American people what leadership looks like, with real solutions for real problems that families face--then I call on Senator McConnell to show up to the negotiating table and give up these rogue attempts to pass empty, halfhearted measures. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has repeatedly warned of potentially dire economic consequences if additional fiscal relief is delayed. As hiring begins to pick up in a few sectors--thank goodness--too many populations, including African-American workers, Hispanic men, and women with children, are being left behind. We need to focus on helping the American people through this pandemic. We need to do it now. This is the so-called lameduck session between the results of an election and the swearing-in of a new Congress and President, but shame on us if we don't use this time together in Washington as an opportunity to do more than vote for a random Republican judge. Can't we roll up our sleeves on a bipartisan basis and realize what is really happening across America as this pandemic heats up and more Americans die every day? We need at least $75 billion for additional testing and contact tracing to slow the spread of COVID-19--far more than the meager $16 billion that was offered in the Republican measure. We also want to put $57 billion in for hospitals, clinics, and health providers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was on the phone with these administrators. They are desperate. We are going to lose hospitals across this country and, I fear, maybe even in our own State if we don't step forward and do something. What is wrong with increasing, at least to some degree, the amount available for food stamps--the so-called SNAP program--so that hundreds of millions of Americans who go to food banks to survive get a helping hand? Is that too much to ask in the month of Thanksgiving and in the month of Christmas? We must also include more economic support for households through a second round of economic impact payments and through reinstating enhanced unemployment benefits. I continue to hear about struggles from hospitals that are on the brink, from workers who have lost their jobs, and from small business owners who are desperately trying to keep their heads above water. Unfortunately, the Senate continues to waste time on proposals that place the needs of Big Business ahead of the needs of small families. History will judge this body on how we respond--not on the best speech given on the floor--or on how we failed to respond to the worst pandemic in a century and the deepest recession in 75 years. The American people are looking for leadership. We cannot let them down | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6620-2 | null | 1,586 |
formal | food stamp | null | racist | Coronavirus Madam President, COVID-19 did not take a day off for the election. While election week was brewing and all of us were glued to our television screens,most of the country was unaware of the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic was worsening. Cases of the virus and hospitalizations in the United States have been spiking for weeks now. On Saturday, we hit the highest daily total of new cases--126,000 new cases on Saturday. In Illinois, we are approaching half a million cases. The State has tragically seen more than 10,000 of our neighbors and friends die from this COVID-19. The country is on pace to hit 1 million new cases every week by the end of this year. This is disastrous, and it demands action. Thankfully, President-Elect Biden has announced an extraordinary task force of respected public health and medical experts--truth tellers, real leaders. Like the NIH's Dr. Fauci, I trust Dr. Kessler, David Kessler, whom I have known for decades; Dr. Morita, who served so admirably in the city of Chicago; Dr. Atul Gawande, one of my real heroes in medicine today--I have spent a lot of money on his books and have never regretted a penny of it; and former Surgeon General Murthy--what an extraordinarily talented man he is and the others who are part of the team. Yet we need to continue to stay safe and remember that this virus is not anywhere near being gone. There are 10 million Americans who have now contracted the virus, and we have lost 238,000 American lives. My heart goes out to everyone who has lost someone in this pandemic and to those who are still suffering due to this virus. In addition to the health and safety of the American people, we have also been struggling to deal with real economic uncertainty, job losses, food insecurity, stress, and childcare. It is a long list. Despite these urgent needs of families, small businesses, workers, health providers, and unemployed Americans across the country, unfortunately, the leadership in this Chamber has dragged its feet and offered only a few very weak measures that barely address the overwhelming needs of this Nation. This is why Americans have not received another round of economic impact payments, rental assistance, or enhanced unemployment assistance, and it is why hospitals are not receiving additional funding. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats passed the Heroes Act in May--a $3.4 trillion relief package. After negotiating with the White House, they then passed the second version of that--a $2.2 trillion package. Unfortunately, the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell, refused to consider either of these proposals and even refused to attend the negotiating sessions. The last Senate Republican response was inadequate--$500 billion. It may seem like a fortune until you look at a nation in the midst of a pandemic and at an economy struggling to survive. If the Republicans are serious about negotiating a real package--if they want to demonstrate to the American people what leadership looks like, with real solutions for real problems that families face--then I call on Senator McConnell to show up to the negotiating table and give up these rogue attempts to pass empty, halfhearted measures. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has repeatedly warned of potentially dire economic consequences if additional fiscal relief is delayed. As hiring begins to pick up in a few sectors--thank goodness--too many populations, including African-American workers, Hispanic men, and women with children, are being left behind. We need to focus on helping the American people through this pandemic. We need to do it now. This is the so-called lameduck session between the results of an election and the swearing-in of a new Congress and President, but shame on us if we don't use this time together in Washington as an opportunity to do more than vote for a random Republican judge. Can't we roll up our sleeves on a bipartisan basis and realize what is really happening across America as this pandemic heats up and more Americans die every day? We need at least $75 billion for additional testing and contact tracing to slow the spread of COVID-19--far more than the meager $16 billion that was offered in the Republican measure. We also want to put $57 billion in for hospitals, clinics, and health providers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was on the phone with these administrators. They are desperate. We are going to lose hospitals across this country and, I fear, maybe even in our own State if we don't step forward and do something. What is wrong with increasing, at least to some degree, the amount available for food stamps--the so-called SNAP program--so that hundreds of millions of Americans who go to food banks to survive get a helping hand? Is that too much to ask in the month of Thanksgiving and in the month of Christmas? We must also include more economic support for households through a second round of economic impact payments and through reinstating enhanced unemployment benefits. I continue to hear about struggles from hospitals that are on the brink, from workers who have lost their jobs, and from small business owners who are desperately trying to keep their heads above water. Unfortunately, the Senate continues to waste time on proposals that place the needs of Big Business ahead of the needs of small families. History will judge this body on how we respond--not on the best speech given on the floor--or on how we failed to respond to the worst pandemic in a century and the deepest recession in 75 years. The American people are looking for leadership. We cannot let them down | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6620-2 | null | 1,587 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Coronavirus Madam President, COVID-19 did not take a day off for the election. While election week was brewing and all of us were glued to our television screens,most of the country was unaware of the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic was worsening. Cases of the virus and hospitalizations in the United States have been spiking for weeks now. On Saturday, we hit the highest daily total of new cases--126,000 new cases on Saturday. In Illinois, we are approaching half a million cases. The State has tragically seen more than 10,000 of our neighbors and friends die from this COVID-19. The country is on pace to hit 1 million new cases every week by the end of this year. This is disastrous, and it demands action. Thankfully, President-Elect Biden has announced an extraordinary task force of respected public health and medical experts--truth tellers, real leaders. Like the NIH's Dr. Fauci, I trust Dr. Kessler, David Kessler, whom I have known for decades; Dr. Morita, who served so admirably in the city of Chicago; Dr. Atul Gawande, one of my real heroes in medicine today--I have spent a lot of money on his books and have never regretted a penny of it; and former Surgeon General Murthy--what an extraordinarily talented man he is and the others who are part of the team. Yet we need to continue to stay safe and remember that this virus is not anywhere near being gone. There are 10 million Americans who have now contracted the virus, and we have lost 238,000 American lives. My heart goes out to everyone who has lost someone in this pandemic and to those who are still suffering due to this virus. In addition to the health and safety of the American people, we have also been struggling to deal with real economic uncertainty, job losses, food insecurity, stress, and childcare. It is a long list. Despite these urgent needs of families, small businesses, workers, health providers, and unemployed Americans across the country, unfortunately, the leadership in this Chamber has dragged its feet and offered only a few very weak measures that barely address the overwhelming needs of this Nation. This is why Americans have not received another round of economic impact payments, rental assistance, or enhanced unemployment assistance, and it is why hospitals are not receiving additional funding. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats passed the Heroes Act in May--a $3.4 trillion relief package. After negotiating with the White House, they then passed the second version of that--a $2.2 trillion package. Unfortunately, the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell, refused to consider either of these proposals and even refused to attend the negotiating sessions. The last Senate Republican response was inadequate--$500 billion. It may seem like a fortune until you look at a nation in the midst of a pandemic and at an economy struggling to survive. If the Republicans are serious about negotiating a real package--if they want to demonstrate to the American people what leadership looks like, with real solutions for real problems that families face--then I call on Senator McConnell to show up to the negotiating table and give up these rogue attempts to pass empty, halfhearted measures. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has repeatedly warned of potentially dire economic consequences if additional fiscal relief is delayed. As hiring begins to pick up in a few sectors--thank goodness--too many populations, including African-American workers, Hispanic men, and women with children, are being left behind. We need to focus on helping the American people through this pandemic. We need to do it now. This is the so-called lameduck session between the results of an election and the swearing-in of a new Congress and President, but shame on us if we don't use this time together in Washington as an opportunity to do more than vote for a random Republican judge. Can't we roll up our sleeves on a bipartisan basis and realize what is really happening across America as this pandemic heats up and more Americans die every day? We need at least $75 billion for additional testing and contact tracing to slow the spread of COVID-19--far more than the meager $16 billion that was offered in the Republican measure. We also want to put $57 billion in for hospitals, clinics, and health providers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was on the phone with these administrators. They are desperate. We are going to lose hospitals across this country and, I fear, maybe even in our own State if we don't step forward and do something. What is wrong with increasing, at least to some degree, the amount available for food stamps--the so-called SNAP program--so that hundreds of millions of Americans who go to food banks to survive get a helping hand? Is that too much to ask in the month of Thanksgiving and in the month of Christmas? We must also include more economic support for households through a second round of economic impact payments and through reinstating enhanced unemployment benefits. I continue to hear about struggles from hospitals that are on the brink, from workers who have lost their jobs, and from small business owners who are desperately trying to keep their heads above water. Unfortunately, the Senate continues to waste time on proposals that place the needs of Big Business ahead of the needs of small families. History will judge this body on how we respond--not on the best speech given on the floor--or on how we failed to respond to the worst pandemic in a century and the deepest recession in 75 years. The American people are looking for leadership. We cannot let them down | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6620-2 | null | 1,588 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Presidential Election Madam President, there is another aspect of this that I would like to address for just a moment. After each Presidential election, there is a transition period when a new President is coming in and his team takes a look at the government as it stands and prepares for the day of January 20, when that new President will be sworn in. All of the networks and major news sources have declared Joe Biden to be the President-elect and Kamala Harris, our colleague here from the Senate, to be the Vice President-elect. They are now bringing together the people who are their experts to prepare for a smooth, orderly transition. Before that can take place, the Administrator of the General Services Administration must file something called an ascertainment that ascertains in fact there was an election and someone won. In most cases, it is very routine. It is just done automatically based on the reports from the States that we already have as we sat busily by the TV, day after day, doing our emails and texting to friends and families, waiting for the returns to come in. The announcement was made on Saturday, and the reaction was all across the country. You would think that the Administrator of the GSA would have the ascertainment necessary to really pull the trigger for a transition from the Trump administration to the incoming Biden administration. These are routine things that have gone on in past years without really much controversy. Yet, lo and behold, this year, there is controversy. For the past 60 years, since Congress passed the Presidential Transition Act to ensure a smooth and orderly transfer of power, the GSA Administrator has usually ascertained the apparent winner within 24 hours of the election. By passing the Presidential Transition Act, Congress has acknowledged how critical this period is for the safety and well-being of the country. Once the GSA makes this ascertainment, the executive branch can provide crucial services to the transition team to make sure there is a smooth transfer. Remember when I mentioned earlier that we are in the midst of a pandemic, with thousands of people dying? Why would we want to see a delay or some bureaucratic indecision that might jeopardize a person's health or a person's life in the midst of this pandemic? Once the GSA makes that ascertainment to provide services, it includes access to classified information for incoming national security officials; background investigations and security clearances for potential nominees; State Department-facilitated foreign leader calls; access to SCIFs and Federal agencies for discussions on personnel, budget, and policy; and accessto $6.3 million of congressionally approved funds to support transition activities and to actually buy office equipment. Delayed ascertainment, as I mentioned, could also prevent the transition team from meeting with agency officials who will be responsible for the COVID-19 crisis. Shouldn't they get up to speed on Operation Warp Speed and on the announcement today by Pfizer that it is on the verge of announcing a successful vaccine? Don't we want an orderly, peaceful, smooth, effective, and efficient transition when it comes to the manufacturing and distribution of that vaccine? Of course, we do. A delayed ascertainment will cause major harm to this transition, to the new Biden administration, and to the American people. It could be a danger to our national security. Why would we ever risk that? On November 27, 2000, when there was an actual controversy in the States and in the courts over 500 or 600 votes in Florida, for example, Vice President-Elect Dick Cheney said about the transition being delayed at all: ``We will pay a heavy price for the delays in planning and assembling the next administration.'' It has been a bitter campaign, a tough campaign. People still have very strong personal feelings about its outcomes. Some people are euphoric, and others are angry and sad. I know that is natural in an election campaign, and I feel that way about some of the races back in my home State. Yet there comes a moment when we have to look after the best interests of this country, and the best interests of this country say we should move forward on the transition at this moment. I believe that President-Elect Joe Biden will be sworn in on January 20 as our next President. I believe the numbers are overwhelming. The margins in even the controversial States are so large, they are not likely to be overturned by any recount. Why delay the transition? Why run the risk that we won't have a smooth, orderly, and efficient passage from one administration to the other? Why, in the middle of a pandemic that has killed over 200,000 Americans and will threaten over 100,000 more before January 20, would we ever risk it over some bureaucratic delay? It is just unacceptable. The American people know the election is over. Now it is time for us in Washington to concede that point. It is time for the Administrator of the GSA to do her job and announce the ascertainment and move forward in an orderly, productive, and smooth transition. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6621 | null | 1,589 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise today to honor Fayetteville Police Department Corporal Seay-Peter Floyd and Officer Natalie Eucce for being awarded the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in Policing by the U.S. Department of Justice. This is a well-deserved honor for their dedication, sacrifice, and bravery they demonstrated on December 7, 2019, when a gunman, armed with 100 rounds of ammunition, targeted law enforcement. Tragically, Fayetteville Police Officer Stephen Carr was killed while sitting in a patrol vehicle in the police station's parking lot. Corporal Floyd courageously pursued the suspect andfired in order to stop the assailant. Officer Eucce joined in the pursuit and also fired her weapon. If not for their quick response, there could have been other victims. This prestigious award is given to State and local law enforcement officers who personify excellence while protecting others. Only 23 members of the law enforcement community from across the country earned this honor this year. Corporal Floyd and Officer Eucce are the first Arkansans to receive this award. Throughout their careers, Corporal Floyd and Officer Eucce have responded to calls for help while not knowing what challenges they will face. They are heroic public servants who courageously face danger head on. It takes a special person to put their life on the line every day to safeguard the public. Corporal Floyd and Officer Eucce represent the men and women who make a difference in our communities. I applaud their service and commitment to safety and the rule of law and congratulate them for receiving the fourth annual Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in Policing. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BOOZMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-11-09-pt1-PgS6623-2 | null | 1,590 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, the President informed us that Secretary Mark Esper's tenure leading the Department of Defense has concluded. When the Senate considered Secretary Esper's nomination, I said you could hardly invent better qualifications to run the Pentagon than his resume. From West Point and the 101st Airborne to his time as Secretary of the Army, this leader had stepped up when his country needed him. The Secretary brought integrity, expertise, and steady leadership to the Pentagon's top job. I am grateful for his work to keep our country safe, modernize our military, and implement the Trump administration's new national defense strategy to address the challenges of our time. A decorated combat veteran himself, he won the respect of the men and women of our Armed Forces. The country is grateful for his career of service. During this time of transition, I am confident in the professionalism of the men and women of the Department of Defense, not to mention our uniformed services. We are lucky to have such capable and duty-focused men and women on the watch, defending the Constitution, deterring our adversaries, and protecting the peace. I expect to speak with Acting Secretary Miller soon to discuss the serious threats facing our country, whether from foreign terrorists or great powers like China and Russia that mayseek to exploit the period of uncertainty. All of this highlights the need for continued sober and steady leadership at the Department. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6627-8 | null | 1,591 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on another matter, I don't think many of us expected President Trump to leave the Office of the Presidency with grace--a quality he has not once demonstrated during his long career in business or his very short career in public life. But the extent to which the RepublicanParty is legitimizing the President's assault on our democracy is infuriating and deeply, deeply wrong. The President is not merely bringing forward well-founded legal challenges. He is not simply taking advantage of the ability to request a recount in States where one is possible. He is declaring himself to be the winner of an election that he lost. He is claiming to win States that he lost. His legal team is filing scores of frivolous, unsubstantiated lawsuits. He is undermining faith in our elections and poisoning our democracy during one of the most delicate moments in our constitutional system, something we treasure: the peaceful transfer of power. The President has fired the Secretary of Defense, threatening the continuity of our national security policy because he is having a temper tantrum. Not only does this put at risk a smooth transition in one of the most sensitive and critical areas of our government, it creates an opening for our adversaries to take advantage of instability and inexperience. The current Attorney General of the United States has made a show of authorizing Federal probes into supposed election fraud, lending a veneer of false credence to the President's delusions. It violates the longstanding tradition of avoiding even the appearance of law enforcement interference in our elections. Almost immediately, Attorney General Barr's decision prompted the Chief of the Justice Department's elections branch to resign in protest. The Government Services Administrator, GSA, has still not signed the paperwork necessary for the Biden transition team to begin its work. And here in the Senate, the Republican leader and several Republican Members are trying to give their President air cover. Yesterday, in the same breath that Leader McConnell celebrated the reelection of certain Republican Senators, he declined to congratulate the winner of the Presidential election because the election results have not been officially certified. The political right seems eager to celebrate the results it approves of while delaying judgment and casting doubt on the results it doesn't. Indeed, the Republican leader could not even mention two words, ``Joe Biden,'' who, regardless of what Republican Senators may think, will be the next President of the United States. Two Republican Members of this Chamber have called on their own secretary of state--a fellow Republican--to resign for no other apparent reason than the fact that President Trump did not win their State. They allege the secretary of state did not deliver honest and transparent elections. That is really a stunning charge in the United States of America. That is the kind of thing you hear about in banana republics and dishonest elections. Surely, U.S. Senators would have some evidence that in the world's premier--premier--democracy an entire State's election was not conducted ``honestly,'' as they say. Surely, you must think that those Senators have incredible, substantial, and weighty proof of such a scandalous and alarming allegation, but you would wrong. Those two Senators provided no evidence--not even a shred--to back up their claims. Three lonely Republican Senators--three in total--have congratulated the next President and Vice President of the United States on their victory and called on the Nation to come together. The rest have been silent or outright sympathetic toward the President's completely unsubstantiated claims of election fraud. So look, here is where we are. Every major media outlet, including FOX News, has projected that Joe Biden will be the next President of the United States, and Kamala Harris will be the next Vice President of the United States--not because the media declared them to be but because more than 76 million Americans voted them into office. There has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud or any indication that results might flip in not one but several States. The country is ready to move on from 4 years of tumultuous and incompetent administration. The institutions of our government will ensure it on January 20, no matter what the current President claims. But they cannot ensure faith in our democracy in the hearts and minds of the American people. That is a project for both parties to confer legitimacy on an election in which, yes, half the country will be disappointed but after which the entire country must pull together. Every day that goes by without the Republican Party acknowledging and accepting the results of the election is another day Americans' faith in our democracy declines | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6628-4 | null | 1,592 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, as we continue to complete the process of our own election here at home, there is also news on the continued growth of democracy half a world away. My colleagues know that I have had a special interest in the democratic aspirations of the people of Burma for decades, dating back to my days leading the Appropriations Subcommittee for State and Foreign Operations. Burma held elections on Sunday, which we hope will represent another step toward a more democratic and prosperous future. For too long, the people of Burma were denied democracy by a brutal military junta. To this day, its influence remains a significant impediment to progress. And as with many new democracies, the elections faced many challenges, ranging from continued conflict to the coronavirus pandemic. But when the votes are counted and Burma's next government is seated, more hard work will await. The government will need to continue advancing Burma's democratic development. Its sovereignty must be defended against the corrupting foreign influence of the People's Republic of China. The nation needs true national reconciliation among Burma's various ethnic groups and further economic reforms to benefit all of its people. Further progress will take real compromise and real sacrifice from parties and interests within Burma, and it will need continued support from the international community, particularly the United States. I have known Daw Suu for many years and know she remains committed to democracy. So I hope and expect that if she and her party are the victors, her government will seek much needed constitutional, economic, and security sector reforms to further limit the corrosive influence of the military and the crony networks over so much of the life in Burma. We are talking about a nation that still reserves 25 percent of the seats in the Parliament for the military itself. It would be an understatement to call that an obstacle toward an ongoing democratic transition. Further progress toward democracy and prosperity in Burma will require the inclusion of Burma's ethnic minorities and making compromises with them. It will require national reconciliation to end the disparate civil conflicts that rage across that country. And it will require accountability for atrocities that have been committed by the military--and not just in Rakhine State. If Burma's Government meaningfully pursues these kinds of efforts, I expect the United States and like-minded countries will continue to stand by them. The free nations of the world have much to gain from Burma's democratization, and we have much to lose if it slides back into authoritarianism or further into the grasp and orbit of China. So, as Americans, our political contests here at home can feel intense. We think our elections are charged and contentious. But when you look at democracies that are just getting off the ground around the world, you remember how blessed we are to live in a republic that has for centuries inspired the forces of democracy and freedom all around the world. We get to live in a country where our institutions of self-government have held up for more than 230 years, where the rule of law and our Constitution are paramount. May we never take it for granted, and may we continue to support those around the world who seek to emulate our example. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6628 | null | 1,593 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, today in Oklahoma, people are going to work, people are going to school, people are on their job, people are in their yard, people are on bikes, people are going for a quiet run in beautiful weather because tomorrow is Veterans Day. We enjoy freedom and peace today because of what those veterans have done for a very long time. Whatever community you are in in Oklahoma, whether you are in Oklahoma City or in Tulsa, or in Lawton, whether you are in Guymon, or Idabel, Altus, or Waukomis--it doesn't matter--you are going to find drawings; you are going to find displays; you are going to find military hardware; you are going to find memorials and monuments to veterans who have served because across our State we remember extremely well the sacrifice that has been made for the quietness of this day, the ability to have an election, the ability to send our kids to school, the ability to work hard, to fight off a virus, the ability to invent and innovate because 1 percent of our Nation has set aside their life to be able to guard the rest of the 99 percent of us. We in Oklahoma could not be more grateful for the service of those women and men over the years and currently. As a nation, we pause on Veterans Day and remember, but I think about veterans who don't just pause once a year to do it. It is part of who they are. They served our Nation in the military, and they find ways to continue to serve veterans and to serve the people around them in their community every single day. There are people who work at the veterans centers in Oklahoma who are remarkable people who help veterans literally every week to be able to work through and navigate the bureaucracy. Our office works with them to try to get solutions and answers if they have issues with the VA or they have issues with trying to get their medals or whatever it may be. But these volunteers are scattered all across our State. We have staff members today who are working in veterans facilities scattered all over the State who are taking care of veterans who are basically in an assisted living-type environment or in a nursing long-term care environment. Those individuals get up every single day and love on veterans. They look them in the eye, when they are now at their weakest moment of their life since their infancy, and say: Our Nation still cares about you. There are people today in Oklahoma who work on Federal housing programs designed to help veterans who are homeless on the street to get care, to find a place to live, and to get established. There are people in Oklahoma today who are working with Federal programs to help veterans who have struggled with addiction, some who didn't reacclimate well. They are helping them right now because our Nation has not forgotten about them. While we grieve with those who grieve--because Veterans Day also brings back the memory, for some families who are Gold Star families, of the ones they have lost--we remind them again that we have not forgotten, and we say thank you to those folks who are serving our veterans every single day. I also think about folks like Bob Ford, who lives in Okeene, OK. He is working at Shawnee Milling Company and does a remarkable job just providing for the people in the community, but he has also kept alive the memory of fellow Vietnam veterans. In so many ways, he helps not only the park and other places to remember, but he also makes sure on Veterans Day that there are speakers in local schools and that someone is retelling the message. He is the one in the community who is always making sure there is a patriotic display at some point. You see, he is a Vietnam veteran himself who is serving and working in the community but who has also turned around said, though his uniform is not on anymore, he wants to make sure the next generation knows what honorable service really looks like. There are folks like Terry Hill from Kellyville, OK, who enlisted in the Army in 2013 as an engineer and was commissioned as an officer in 2008. He became a Black Hawk aeromedical research and maintenance test pilot. He flew 750 combat missions in Afghanistan over multiple deployments before he came down really, really hard one time and had a medical discharge. You see, for Terry, Veterans Day is not a once-a-year thing. He founded Rapid Application Group in his home. It is an additive manufacturing company. In fact, his is the only additive manufacturing company that has a disabled veteran running it in the entire country. Every Friday, he has a hashtag ``RAG Friday.'' Many of those who work in his company are also fellow veterans. But every Friday, he reminds everyone to watch out for fellow veterans, to watch out for issues like possible suicide senses, to engage with those folks who have made great sacrifices to serve our Nation, and to continue to check on them because some of the things they have experienced and some of the challenges they have faced leave lasting memories for them. As they stood for our freedom and our country forgets those moments, they never do because they have lived them firsthand. So his simple way to do RAG Fridays every Friday and to challenge folks to not forget veterans in your community is his way of being able to serve folks. Again, as a nation, we have not forgotten, but we are exceptionally grateful for those who remind us as a nation not just to remember once a year but to stay engaged with those veterans who have given so much and continue to give so much. Honestly, I don't know a veteran who is not still serving. They find ways toserve each other. They find ways to serve their community because it is in their heart, and it is deep within their soul. They have served our Nation, and they will continue to serve our Nation. And while some need our help, I most often hear from veterans: How can I help? So let me just say from my heart and from my State: Thank you, again, for serving the way that you serve. Allow us to say thank you to you face-to-face today and to tell you once again, we have not forgotten, and we are grateful for the sacrifice you and your family have made. For those Gold Star families, we cannot thank you enough because every day you remember, and you need to hear from us that so do we. When the Israelites crossed over the Jordan, they went back into that dry area and gathered stones. And they set those stones on the embankment for one specific purpose. The purpose was simple. They said: When your children walk past these stones in the days ahead and they say ``What are those stones for?'' you are to remind them of the faithfulness of God. They were to be a permanent reminder. Allow Veterans Day and the military memorials all over the State today to be a good teaching moment for our children so that when they say ``Why is that there?'' we remind them of the freedom that we have and the cost of that freedom and express our gratitude again to the veterans who have served us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6632 | null | 1,594 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as I begin my remarks, let me thank my friend Senator Lankford for his eloquent comments about our veterans and those who have served and given their lives for us. I am here with my trusty and battered ``Time to Wake up'' graphic because, after 4 dark years on climate, there is at last a glimmer of light on the horizon. President-Elect Biden has promised to redirect the executive branch to address climate change in the clear light of real science, out of the dark swamp of fossil fuel denial and obstruction, trying--trying--to head off a climate catastrophe while there is still time, if there is still time. There is a lot the executive branch can do. The President can lead diplomatic and international trade initiatives. The environmental regulatory agencies of government can be freed from corrupting influence to do their duty with vigor based on science and the law. Securities regulators can put climate risk to the economy at the forefront, as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has just done. Purchasing decisions can be directed toward a clean energy future. Permitting decisions can be made with the social cost of carbon pollution in mind, as courts have already begun to demand even in the corrupt Trump era. On the investigative side, the administration can begin a hard look at the forces of corruption that have blockaded action on climate change: Who did this and how? Did their political spending violate campaign finance, conflict of interest, or other laws? Did their toxic propaganda violate laws against fraud, as the tobacco industry's did? Was their occupation of regulatory agencies a rolling conspiracy to violate the Administrative Procedures Act, and if so, how and for whom was it organized? Has their interference in the judiciary compromised the rights of parties or the integrity of courts? American citizens deserve a full and fearless exposition of why Congress has thwarted the public will to do something--anything--meaningful to address this climate crisis and at whose behest. What were the forces of corruption, and how did they accomplish their nefarious purpose? There is a lesson in democracy here for the citizens of this great Republic--a lesson that is now hidden behind phony front groups and subterranean rivers of anonymous money. There is every reason to believe that the biggest covert op in history has been run in and against our own government. That is no way for a ``city on a hill'' to be governed. But with all the executive branch policy work and all the investigations that are due and overdue, there is no pathway to climate safety that does not go through Congress. Action by Congress is a necessity, not a luxury. I have seen no study showing any pathway to safety without action by Congress. To make that pathway to safety possible, we will have to change a few things. One is, as I said, to investigate the denial and obstruction campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, how it used its dark weaponry of political spending--much of it anonymous--and political propaganda. The executive branch can do this, but so can the House. Sadly, here in the Senate, the power of the fossil fuel industry assures no such investigation will happen in our committees if Republicans keep control of the Senate. But the House or a high-level Presidential commission or our Department of Justice all have tools to bring the light of transparency into these dark and slimy corners. Separately, we can display to the American people what corporate America says about climate change versus what it does in Congress. It may even surprise some CEOs what their corporate lobbying posture actually is. If you are a CEO who is sincere about this, you ought to commission an audit of your corporate lobbying and electioneering on climate. Here is what you will find, unless you are maybe Patagonia or Ben & Jerry's: Most every major American corporation does nothing in Congress on climate--zip, zero, nada. TechNet lobbies for the supposedly climate-friendly Silicon Valley giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. It even represents green energy companies. Yet this year its glossy, 13-page menu of priorities for Congress never even mentioned climate change or green energy. Coke and Pepsi lobby Congress through an American Beverage Association that doesn't lift a finger on climate. That corporate behemoth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--three times the lobbying muscle of its next nearest rival, sometimes the biggest dark-money spender in elections, a persistent voice in our courts and regulatory agencies--that chamber is in a statistical tie for America's worst climate obstructer--worst. Representing Ford and GM, Abbott Labs and Johnson & Johnson, Citibank and Bank of America, Delta and United, Target and Home Depot, Intel and AT&T, and dozens of other big businesses is a worst climate obstructer in America. That deserves some explaining. Don't just blame Congress. By doing nothing, Congress is exactly following what corporate America actually asks of Congress: Do nothing. Do nothing. We don't care. Want to open a pathway for a safe climate through Congress? Republicans in Congress are going to have to hear that their corporate benefactors demand climate action. They aren't hearing that now. They are hearing the opposite. They are hearing: We don't care. Democrats are ready. We have been ready for a decade. Republicans, at least since Citizens United--it was quite bipartisan before that decision--won't touch the issue, and by an amazing coincidence, that party is almost entirely funded by the unlimited and often anonymous donations of the fossil fuel industry. The money is often hidden, of course, behind donor trusts and shell corporations and 501(c)(4) tax organizations, but it is there, and it is billions. The rest of corporate America has not pushed back. They have their own tax breaks to protect and their own industry priorities to pursue, and climate change just doesn't make it into their corporate political agenda. Getting the so-called good guys off the bench and onto the field could make a big difference, but they are not there now--not yet. If corporations are going to fail this moral test so catastrophically, it is fair to ask what good it does to give corporations any role in our politics, let alone the commanding role they now assert in the U.S. Congress. The Founding Fathers, for one, would be astonished to see these monsters loose in our politics at all, let alone so large and in charge. But that is for another day. Right now, there is a lot President-Elect Biden can do to break the political logjam fossil fuel money has built: Investigate it, expose it, and then overwhelm it. Recruit allies to help push back hard. Give no audience or corner to corporations funding climate obstruction. Make lobbying groups disclose who their big donors are so the American citizen isn't played for a chump--the mark in a giant con game. If you don't think big American industries are capable of committing massive fraud, read the decision of the Federal judge in the fraud case the United States won against Big Tobacco for that scheme of lies or read the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding her verdict. It took investigation to get to the truth, not politics. Indeed, investigation had to pierce through a fog of industry politics and lies. But at the end of the day and, more specifically, at the end of the investigation, the truth was out, and the truth was massive industry fraud I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6633 | null | 1,595 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as I begin my remarks, let me thank my friend Senator Lankford for his eloquent comments about our veterans and those who have served and given their lives for us. I am here with my trusty and battered ``Time to Wake up'' graphic because, after 4 dark years on climate, there is at last a glimmer of light on the horizon. President-Elect Biden has promised to redirect the executive branch to address climate change in the clear light of real science, out of the dark swamp of fossil fuel denial and obstruction, trying--trying--to head off a climate catastrophe while there is still time, if there is still time. There is a lot the executive branch can do. The President can lead diplomatic and international trade initiatives. The environmental regulatory agencies of government can be freed from corrupting influence to do their duty with vigor based on science and the law. Securities regulators can put climate risk to the economy at the forefront, as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has just done. Purchasing decisions can be directed toward a clean energy future. Permitting decisions can be made with the social cost of carbon pollution in mind, as courts have already begun to demand even in the corrupt Trump era. On the investigative side, the administration can begin a hard look at the forces of corruption that have blockaded action on climate change: Who did this and how? Did their political spending violate campaign finance, conflict of interest, or other laws? Did their toxic propaganda violate laws against fraud, as the tobacco industry's did? Was their occupation of regulatory agencies a rolling conspiracy to violate the Administrative Procedures Act, and if so, how and for whom was it organized? Has their interference in the judiciary compromised the rights of parties or the integrity of courts? American citizens deserve a full and fearless exposition of why Congress has thwarted the public will to do something--anything--meaningful to address this climate crisis and at whose behest. What were the forces of corruption, and how did they accomplish their nefarious purpose? There is a lesson in democracy here for the citizens of this great Republic--a lesson that is now hidden behind phony front groups and subterranean rivers of anonymous money. There is every reason to believe that the biggest covert op in history has been run in and against our own government. That is no way for a ``city on a hill'' to be governed. But with all the executive branch policy work and all the investigations that are due and overdue, there is no pathway to climate safety that does not go through Congress. Action by Congress is a necessity, not a luxury. I have seen no study showing any pathway to safety without action by Congress. To make that pathway to safety possible, we will have to change a few things. One is, as I said, to investigate the denial and obstruction campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, how it used its dark weaponry of political spending--much of it anonymous--and political propaganda. The executive branch can do this, but so can the House. Sadly, here in the Senate, the power of the fossil fuel industry assures no such investigation will happen in our committees if Republicans keep control of the Senate. But the House or a high-level Presidential commission or our Department of Justice all have tools to bring the light of transparency into these dark and slimy corners. Separately, we can display to the American people what corporate America says about climate change versus what it does in Congress. It may even surprise some CEOs what their corporate lobbying posture actually is. If you are a CEO who is sincere about this, you ought to commission an audit of your corporate lobbying and electioneering on climate. Here is what you will find, unless you are maybe Patagonia or Ben & Jerry's: Most every major American corporation does nothing in Congress on climate--zip, zero, nada. TechNet lobbies for the supposedly climate-friendly Silicon Valley giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. It even represents green energy companies. Yet this year its glossy, 13-page menu of priorities for Congress never even mentioned climate change or green energy. Coke and Pepsi lobby Congress through an American Beverage Association that doesn't lift a finger on climate. That corporate behemoth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--three times the lobbying muscle of its next nearest rival, sometimes the biggest dark-money spender in elections, a persistent voice in our courts and regulatory agencies--that chamber is in a statistical tie for America's worst climate obstructer--worst. Representing Ford and GM, Abbott Labs and Johnson & Johnson, Citibank and Bank of America, Delta and United, Target and Home Depot, Intel and AT&T, and dozens of other big businesses is a worst climate obstructer in America. That deserves some explaining. Don't just blame Congress. By doing nothing, Congress is exactly following what corporate America actually asks of Congress: Do nothing. Do nothing. We don't care. Want to open a pathway for a safe climate through Congress? Republicans in Congress are going to have to hear that their corporate benefactors demand climate action. They aren't hearing that now. They are hearing the opposite. They are hearing: We don't care. Democrats are ready. We have been ready for a decade. Republicans, at least since Citizens United--it was quite bipartisan before that decision--won't touch the issue, and by an amazing coincidence, that party is almost entirely funded by the unlimited and often anonymous donations of the fossil fuel industry. The money is often hidden, of course, behind donor trusts and shell corporations and 501(c)(4) tax organizations, but it is there, and it is billions. The rest of corporate America has not pushed back. They have their own tax breaks to protect and their own industry priorities to pursue, and climate change just doesn't make it into their corporate political agenda. Getting the so-called good guys off the bench and onto the field could make a big difference, but they are not there now--not yet. If corporations are going to fail this moral test so catastrophically, it is fair to ask what good it does to give corporations any role in our politics, let alone the commanding role they now assert in the U.S. Congress. The Founding Fathers, for one, would be astonished to see these monsters loose in our politics at all, let alone so large and in charge. But that is for another day. Right now, there is a lot President-Elect Biden can do to break the political logjam fossil fuel money has built: Investigate it, expose it, and then overwhelm it. Recruit allies to help push back hard. Give no audience or corner to corporations funding climate obstruction. Make lobbying groups disclose who their big donors are so the American citizen isn't played for a chump--the mark in a giant con game. If you don't think big American industries are capable of committing massive fraud, read the decision of the Federal judge in the fraud case the United States won against Big Tobacco for that scheme of lies or read the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding her verdict. It took investigation to get to the truth, not politics. Indeed, investigation had to pierce through a fog of industry politics and lies. But at the end of the day and, more specifically, at the end of the investigation, the truth was out, and the truth was massive industry fraud I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6633 | null | 1,596 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as I begin my remarks, let me thank my friend Senator Lankford for his eloquent comments about our veterans and those who have served and given their lives for us. I am here with my trusty and battered ``Time to Wake up'' graphic because, after 4 dark years on climate, there is at last a glimmer of light on the horizon. President-Elect Biden has promised to redirect the executive branch to address climate change in the clear light of real science, out of the dark swamp of fossil fuel denial and obstruction, trying--trying--to head off a climate catastrophe while there is still time, if there is still time. There is a lot the executive branch can do. The President can lead diplomatic and international trade initiatives. The environmental regulatory agencies of government can be freed from corrupting influence to do their duty with vigor based on science and the law. Securities regulators can put climate risk to the economy at the forefront, as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has just done. Purchasing decisions can be directed toward a clean energy future. Permitting decisions can be made with the social cost of carbon pollution in mind, as courts have already begun to demand even in the corrupt Trump era. On the investigative side, the administration can begin a hard look at the forces of corruption that have blockaded action on climate change: Who did this and how? Did their political spending violate campaign finance, conflict of interest, or other laws? Did their toxic propaganda violate laws against fraud, as the tobacco industry's did? Was their occupation of regulatory agencies a rolling conspiracy to violate the Administrative Procedures Act, and if so, how and for whom was it organized? Has their interference in the judiciary compromised the rights of parties or the integrity of courts? American citizens deserve a full and fearless exposition of why Congress has thwarted the public will to do something--anything--meaningful to address this climate crisis and at whose behest. What were the forces of corruption, and how did they accomplish their nefarious purpose? There is a lesson in democracy here for the citizens of this great Republic--a lesson that is now hidden behind phony front groups and subterranean rivers of anonymous money. There is every reason to believe that the biggest covert op in history has been run in and against our own government. That is no way for a ``city on a hill'' to be governed. But with all the executive branch policy work and all the investigations that are due and overdue, there is no pathway to climate safety that does not go through Congress. Action by Congress is a necessity, not a luxury. I have seen no study showing any pathway to safety without action by Congress. To make that pathway to safety possible, we will have to change a few things. One is, as I said, to investigate the denial and obstruction campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, how it used its dark weaponry of political spending--much of it anonymous--and political propaganda. The executive branch can do this, but so can the House. Sadly, here in the Senate, the power of the fossil fuel industry assures no such investigation will happen in our committees if Republicans keep control of the Senate. But the House or a high-level Presidential commission or our Department of Justice all have tools to bring the light of transparency into these dark and slimy corners. Separately, we can display to the American people what corporate America says about climate change versus what it does in Congress. It may even surprise some CEOs what their corporate lobbying posture actually is. If you are a CEO who is sincere about this, you ought to commission an audit of your corporate lobbying and electioneering on climate. Here is what you will find, unless you are maybe Patagonia or Ben & Jerry's: Most every major American corporation does nothing in Congress on climate--zip, zero, nada. TechNet lobbies for the supposedly climate-friendly Silicon Valley giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. It even represents green energy companies. Yet this year its glossy, 13-page menu of priorities for Congress never even mentioned climate change or green energy. Coke and Pepsi lobby Congress through an American Beverage Association that doesn't lift a finger on climate. That corporate behemoth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--three times the lobbying muscle of its next nearest rival, sometimes the biggest dark-money spender in elections, a persistent voice in our courts and regulatory agencies--that chamber is in a statistical tie for America's worst climate obstructer--worst. Representing Ford and GM, Abbott Labs and Johnson & Johnson, Citibank and Bank of America, Delta and United, Target and Home Depot, Intel and AT&T, and dozens of other big businesses is a worst climate obstructer in America. That deserves some explaining. Don't just blame Congress. By doing nothing, Congress is exactly following what corporate America actually asks of Congress: Do nothing. Do nothing. We don't care. Want to open a pathway for a safe climate through Congress? Republicans in Congress are going to have to hear that their corporate benefactors demand climate action. They aren't hearing that now. They are hearing the opposite. They are hearing: We don't care. Democrats are ready. We have been ready for a decade. Republicans, at least since Citizens United--it was quite bipartisan before that decision--won't touch the issue, and by an amazing coincidence, that party is almost entirely funded by the unlimited and often anonymous donations of the fossil fuel industry. The money is often hidden, of course, behind donor trusts and shell corporations and 501(c)(4) tax organizations, but it is there, and it is billions. The rest of corporate America has not pushed back. They have their own tax breaks to protect and their own industry priorities to pursue, and climate change just doesn't make it into their corporate political agenda. Getting the so-called good guys off the bench and onto the field could make a big difference, but they are not there now--not yet. If corporations are going to fail this moral test so catastrophically, it is fair to ask what good it does to give corporations any role in our politics, let alone the commanding role they now assert in the U.S. Congress. The Founding Fathers, for one, would be astonished to see these monsters loose in our politics at all, let alone so large and in charge. But that is for another day. Right now, there is a lot President-Elect Biden can do to break the political logjam fossil fuel money has built: Investigate it, expose it, and then overwhelm it. Recruit allies to help push back hard. Give no audience or corner to corporations funding climate obstruction. Make lobbying groups disclose who their big donors are so the American citizen isn't played for a chump--the mark in a giant con game. If you don't think big American industries are capable of committing massive fraud, read the decision of the Federal judge in the fraud case the United States won against Big Tobacco for that scheme of lies or read the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding her verdict. It took investigation to get to the truth, not politics. Indeed, investigation had to pierce through a fog of industry politics and lies. But at the end of the day and, more specifically, at the end of the investigation, the truth was out, and the truth was massive industry fraud I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6633 | null | 1,597 |
formal | Google | null | racist | Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as I begin my remarks, let me thank my friend Senator Lankford for his eloquent comments about our veterans and those who have served and given their lives for us. I am here with my trusty and battered ``Time to Wake up'' graphic because, after 4 dark years on climate, there is at last a glimmer of light on the horizon. President-Elect Biden has promised to redirect the executive branch to address climate change in the clear light of real science, out of the dark swamp of fossil fuel denial and obstruction, trying--trying--to head off a climate catastrophe while there is still time, if there is still time. There is a lot the executive branch can do. The President can lead diplomatic and international trade initiatives. The environmental regulatory agencies of government can be freed from corrupting influence to do their duty with vigor based on science and the law. Securities regulators can put climate risk to the economy at the forefront, as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has just done. Purchasing decisions can be directed toward a clean energy future. Permitting decisions can be made with the social cost of carbon pollution in mind, as courts have already begun to demand even in the corrupt Trump era. On the investigative side, the administration can begin a hard look at the forces of corruption that have blockaded action on climate change: Who did this and how? Did their political spending violate campaign finance, conflict of interest, or other laws? Did their toxic propaganda violate laws against fraud, as the tobacco industry's did? Was their occupation of regulatory agencies a rolling conspiracy to violate the Administrative Procedures Act, and if so, how and for whom was it organized? Has their interference in the judiciary compromised the rights of parties or the integrity of courts? American citizens deserve a full and fearless exposition of why Congress has thwarted the public will to do something--anything--meaningful to address this climate crisis and at whose behest. What were the forces of corruption, and how did they accomplish their nefarious purpose? There is a lesson in democracy here for the citizens of this great Republic--a lesson that is now hidden behind phony front groups and subterranean rivers of anonymous money. There is every reason to believe that the biggest covert op in history has been run in and against our own government. That is no way for a ``city on a hill'' to be governed. But with all the executive branch policy work and all the investigations that are due and overdue, there is no pathway to climate safety that does not go through Congress. Action by Congress is a necessity, not a luxury. I have seen no study showing any pathway to safety without action by Congress. To make that pathway to safety possible, we will have to change a few things. One is, as I said, to investigate the denial and obstruction campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, how it used its dark weaponry of political spending--much of it anonymous--and political propaganda. The executive branch can do this, but so can the House. Sadly, here in the Senate, the power of the fossil fuel industry assures no such investigation will happen in our committees if Republicans keep control of the Senate. But the House or a high-level Presidential commission or our Department of Justice all have tools to bring the light of transparency into these dark and slimy corners. Separately, we can display to the American people what corporate America says about climate change versus what it does in Congress. It may even surprise some CEOs what their corporate lobbying posture actually is. If you are a CEO who is sincere about this, you ought to commission an audit of your corporate lobbying and electioneering on climate. Here is what you will find, unless you are maybe Patagonia or Ben & Jerry's: Most every major American corporation does nothing in Congress on climate--zip, zero, nada. TechNet lobbies for the supposedly climate-friendly Silicon Valley giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. It even represents green energy companies. Yet this year its glossy, 13-page menu of priorities for Congress never even mentioned climate change or green energy. Coke and Pepsi lobby Congress through an American Beverage Association that doesn't lift a finger on climate. That corporate behemoth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--three times the lobbying muscle of its next nearest rival, sometimes the biggest dark-money spender in elections, a persistent voice in our courts and regulatory agencies--that chamber is in a statistical tie for America's worst climate obstructer--worst. Representing Ford and GM, Abbott Labs and Johnson & Johnson, Citibank and Bank of America, Delta and United, Target and Home Depot, Intel and AT&T, and dozens of other big businesses is a worst climate obstructer in America. That deserves some explaining. Don't just blame Congress. By doing nothing, Congress is exactly following what corporate America actually asks of Congress: Do nothing. Do nothing. We don't care. Want to open a pathway for a safe climate through Congress? Republicans in Congress are going to have to hear that their corporate benefactors demand climate action. They aren't hearing that now. They are hearing the opposite. They are hearing: We don't care. Democrats are ready. We have been ready for a decade. Republicans, at least since Citizens United--it was quite bipartisan before that decision--won't touch the issue, and by an amazing coincidence, that party is almost entirely funded by the unlimited and often anonymous donations of the fossil fuel industry. The money is often hidden, of course, behind donor trusts and shell corporations and 501(c)(4) tax organizations, but it is there, and it is billions. The rest of corporate America has not pushed back. They have their own tax breaks to protect and their own industry priorities to pursue, and climate change just doesn't make it into their corporate political agenda. Getting the so-called good guys off the bench and onto the field could make a big difference, but they are not there now--not yet. If corporations are going to fail this moral test so catastrophically, it is fair to ask what good it does to give corporations any role in our politics, let alone the commanding role they now assert in the U.S. Congress. The Founding Fathers, for one, would be astonished to see these monsters loose in our politics at all, let alone so large and in charge. But that is for another day. Right now, there is a lot President-Elect Biden can do to break the political logjam fossil fuel money has built: Investigate it, expose it, and then overwhelm it. Recruit allies to help push back hard. Give no audience or corner to corporations funding climate obstruction. Make lobbying groups disclose who their big donors are so the American citizen isn't played for a chump--the mark in a giant con game. If you don't think big American industries are capable of committing massive fraud, read the decision of the Federal judge in the fraud case the United States won against Big Tobacco for that scheme of lies or read the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding her verdict. It took investigation to get to the truth, not politics. Indeed, investigation had to pierce through a fog of industry politics and lies. But at the end of the day and, more specifically, at the end of the investigation, the truth was out, and the truth was massive industry fraud I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WHITEHOUSE | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6633 | null | 1,598 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. COONS. Mr. President, 2020 has been a difficult year for so many. We have lost far too many mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, neighbors and friends. My own heart and the hearts of many in Delaware grew heavier this week as we said goodbye in Delaware to a whole series of friends, folks who had long been champions of our community, folks who were exactly the sort of people who helped build and sustain community. I am grateful for the privilege of the floor to speak for a few minutes about the legacy of these lions of Delaware, these folks who were giants of service and who gave their hearts to us. On Monday, we said goodbye to Elaine and Wayne Manlove, who were loved by so many, and I rise first to pay tribute to them--some of the most special people I have ever known. They were killed in a tragic accident literally the day before last Tuesday's election. On that day, we lost two of Delaware's greatest diamonds, Mary ``Elaine'' Manlove and Lambert ``Wayne'' Manlove from Hockessin and Ocean View. It was always striking they went not by their first names but by their middle names. They were known as Elaine and Wayne Manlove. These are proud patriots, people dedicated to our State and community who spent decades giving to others. Elaine I knew best in her role as State elections commissioner and as someone who fought hard here for funding for election security and election systems. The very last time I saw her, she was proudly showing off the brandnew statewide election system in Delaware. She didn't, tragically, get to see the fruits of her labor--the deployment of these new, state-of-the-art digital voting machines. Her many professional achievements in that role: increasing our voter rolls, modernizing machines, bringing elections to the classrooms, carrying off just this last Tuesday a near flawless statewide election. While impressive, it was just a very small part of who Elaine was. Deeply proud of her Irish heritage, known for her kindness and her generosity, her Irish Catholic faith that she and Wayne shared was a foundation for them and for their family and their lives. St. Patrick's Day in Wilmington was often the highlight. Elaine was one of the folks who helped organize the annual St. Patrick's Day mass and breakfast--a breakfast that raised money for the St. Patrick Center that serves some of the neediest and most marginalized in Wilmington but a breakfast that was a celebration of the intersection of faith, politics, service, hope, and community. My own wife Annie worked with Elaine for years in New Castle County government long before her time as the State elections commissioner, and they remained close for years afterward. Annie knew her as the best mom and grandmother and friend to so many people. Margaret Aitkin, one of Elaine's closest friends, who also served with her and my wife in county government, said: Elaine never sought the spotlight, and she never tried to be the center of attention--she was like a warm fire that you just gravitated towards. She wasn't the life of the party; she was the reason for the party. Elaine had a special and giving spirit that had a lasting and transformativedifference on thousands of Delawareans, from Kirkwood Soccer, to the county, to her work for elections, to her deep commitment to her faith, her family, and her community. Wayne, her husband of 51 years, was a union electrician, a proud member of IBEW Local 313 for 53 years. Wayne loved hosting neighborhood dinners, annual crab feasts, watching his beloved Eagles with family and friends, and confounding his son because he could never get his players straight. He loved sharing the Eagles with all three of his sons. For Wayne and Elaine, their sons, Matthew, Joe, and Michael, were the beginning, middle, and end. The Sun rose and set on their boys. They took huge delight in sharing stories about them with everyone who would sit still and listen. They did everything it took to put them through college and through parochial education. They sacrificed hugely for their children, and it made a lasting difference in their lives. Once Elaine and Wayne were your friends, they were always your friends. They brought together people from grade school, high school, from work, and from all different walks of life. They were strongly rooted in and connected to St. Elizabeth's parish, where Elaine was baptized, where they were married, and where they just last year renewed their vows for their 50th wedding anniversary. On Monday, hundreds of us gathered to wish them farewell. So my condolences, my deep and heartfelt condolences go out to Matthew and Meghan, to Joe, to Michael and Mary, to Elaine's brother Grant and wife Ruth, and their four grandchildren who gave them such joy: Catherine, Elizabeth, Margaret, and Finn. I am turning now to consider another Delawarean and friend, someone I knew for decades who exemplified character, bravery, and integrity. Mike Rush--Edward Michael Rush, Jr., who passed away late last month in Bear, was someone who always rose to the tasks and challenges at hand--a Marine Corps veteran, a small business owner, a firefighter, a member of the American Legion, a stalwart of his parish, and a great friend. He was a proud graduate of Salesianum High School and Goldey-Beacom College and a proprietor and leader of a family-owned business, Rush Uniform. He started working there in 1963, and he helped build and lead his family-owned business for decades. I first really got to know Mike through the Better Business Bureau, where he and his family sponsored an award for ethical behavior by a family-owned business. He sponsored the Edward M. Rush, Sr. Memorial Award. Mike was also someone whose whole heart was in the fire service. The volunteer fire service in Delaware is one of the backbones of communities up and down our State, and he was a life member of two volunteer fire companies. He was 50 years with Wilmington Manor, 33 years with Christiana, president of the New Castle County Volunteer Fire Chiefs Association, president of the Delaware Valley Fire Chief's Association, and then, ultimately, while I was county executive, president of the Delaware State Fire Chiefs Association. Mike was also someone who did the hard work of being a fire school instructor for our State for 30 years. Mike did so much for so many others through his parish, through his fire company, through his training service, and through his service to our Nation in the military. He has earned accolades for his decades of bravery and his commitment to our community. But more than anything, because I was not able to make it to his service, I wanted to share my condolences and the gratitude of our State and Nation for Mike's wife of 45 years, Winnie; his sisters Barbara and Catherine; his children Megan and Barbara; and his beloved grandson Seamus. Let me now turn to another anchor of another community in our State and offer greetings and condolences to the family and the beloved of Pastor Lottie Lee-Davis. She was an ordained minister from the east side of Wilmington and a hallmark of resiliency and faith. She was a preacher's daughter, a voice for the voiceless, and a beacon of hope for many. A friend, Alethea Smith-Tucker, told our Delaware News Journal that it was unending how many people Pastor Davis had touched and encouraged without judgment and without regard. She was the devoted pastor at Be Ready Jesus is Coming Church. She answered the call to serve beyond the confines of the pulpit. She provided housing for single mothers and their children. She led efforts to renovate parks for the community, and she recently garnered funding to build a mixed-use property just a block from her church to provide housing for those in need. Sadly, that which she launched, she will not get to see come to fruition in this life, but I am confident that Pastor Davis will continue to inspire and engage and move the community of Wilmington, the congregation she helped lead, and the families who will benefit for years to come from her vision and her leadership of this project she just launched. Her legacy will continue to live through her work. I wanted to give my condolences to her husband Flalandas; to her daughter Amira; and to members of the congregation, family, and friends. Last, but certainly not least, this past week we lost someone beloved to me and to so many in the Hockessin community, Gloria Ignudo Corrozi. Gloria was a mainstay of one of the landmark couples of our State for decades. Gloria spent 30 years working at DuPont, and like so many of her generation who had a successful career at DuPont, she also was engaged in lots and lots of other community activities, engagements, and services. She spent a lot of her life also helping the Delaware Chapter of the American Diabetes Association. She served as cochair and raised tens of thousands of dollars year after year after year for this important cause. But, frankly, her great joy was her family. Her beloved husband of 55 years, Philip Corrozi, was someone who was an incredible mentor and friend to me at work, at home, and in public service. Phil was an elected Republican, chairman of the Budget Committee, leader in our State general assembly, and someone who, with Gloria's tireless affection and support, crafted lasting solutions for our State. Gloria was a blessing to an incredible network of friends and family, nieces and nephews, all of whom knew her as Aunt Gloria. I had the opportunity to get to know her best in the decade I spent working with Phil at a global manufacturing firm in Delaware. But Phil Corrozi, frankly, was someone who, when he gave his heart to a cause, Gloria was right alongside him and often pushing him. For a woman who never had children of her own, Gloria had so many people who knew her and thought of her as a second mother. My heart goes out to Gloria's family and friends who, today, gathered at St. Anthony of Padua Church in Wilmington to say their final goodbyes to this gracious, kind, funny, giving, loving, powerful woman, whose witness was an important influence on my life, as well as so many others. These are just some of the individuals our community has lost this year. Delaware is a State of neighbors, and we all feel these losses profoundly. There was a strong, common thread amongst those I have just honored and those who have been a gift to our State. I want to return to a powerful message that Joe, Wayne and Elaine Manlove's son, gave in a eulogy just Monday at St. Elizabeth Church. It was funny; it was memorable; it was wide-ranging; it was personal; and it was touching. But at the conclusion, Joe said this. While today is sad and painful and so unexpected for all of us, I want to leave you with this thought: When you leave here today thinking of my parents and feeling the void in your life, do the following--join a civic committee, help organize your kids' Little League, volunteer for something you care about, help a neighbor with a home project, and when some email comes out saying ``We need people to help,'' respond that you are in. Do all of it without a thought of compensation. Do it because it is the right thing to do. Do it because you want to improve the world around you. Do it because there is nothing more powerful than the heart of a volunteer. That was them, Wayne and Elaine, but that was also Mike and Lottie and Gloria and so many other friends and neighbors who helped weave togetheracross different backgrounds, different political parties, and different places of origin and different communities--they weaved together a State of neighbors and left a lasting legacy. That legacy is that we love one another as we have been called to do. May we continue to be grateful for their legacies of service and live lives that would make them and their families proud. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. COONS | Senate | CREC-2020-11-10-pt1-PgS6637 | null | 1,599 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.