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 | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on an entirely different matter, my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate are, to put it mildly, an impressive bunch. It always makes it a challenge to pay adequate tribute when one leaves our ranks. But even by the high standards of this place, the course charted by the Senator, whom I have to send off this morning, stands out. The senior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi, has accomplished enough in one career to fill two. He seemingly glided from business success to military service, to local government, to State politics, to the U.S. Senate, where he hasbuilt a remarkably productive legislative record. Mike's prolific career began in a small town. In fact, Gillette, WY, was so small when Mike and his wife Diana arrived and stood up the family business, the town still carried the less-than-flattering nickname of ``Dirt.'' But new discoveries in the American energy business were in the course of changing everything. A major oil and gas boom meant more people. More people meant more sales at Mike's NZ Shoes store--that is the letter ``N'' and the letter ``Z.'' Mike could have just sat back and cruised, but Mike saw Gillette struggling to keep up with the growth, and basic services were lagging. Nearly everyone who encountered him in town or in the junior chamber of commerce meetings concluded this up-and-comer had real leadership talent. I understand the final prod into public service came from no less a Wyoming statesman, our own former colleague, Al Simpson. They had crossed paths. Alan had heard Mike speak. He took the promising young man aside to tell him rather pointedly that his town sure did need a good mayor. To be precise, Mike tells us the phrasing was typically blunt Al Simpson: ``Put your money where your mouth is.'' Our future colleague took it under advisement. But Mike almost didn't survive long enough to announce his campaign. The way he told it on the floor last week, when he worked up the courage to relay that suggestion to Diana on their long drive home, she almost swerved right off the road. Fortunately, they were unharmed, and the more they talked, the more they liked the idea of making a difference. So, at the ripe old age of 30, this up-and-coming businessman ran for mayor, and he won. On his watch, what could have been a municipal disaster became an economic golden age for Gillette. It didn't take long for the town's fortunes to become the talk of political minds around Wyoming. After a few years off, the former Mayor Enzi was representing his neighbors as State representative and then as State senator. And just like water seeks its own level, talent tends to seek its best outlet. So, after squeaking out a close primary victory over his now-fellow Senator from Wyoming, John Barrasso, Mike packed his bags for Washington in late 1996, and this body gained, at that time, its only trained accountant. Now, Mike knew that if he was going to properly serve his beloved State, he would need fellow Wyomingites working alongside him--people who shared his no-nonsense affection for careful planning and thrift in government. One of his best decisions was persuading his longtime collaborator, the onetime town manager of Gillette, Flip McConnaughey, to move to Washington and be his chief of staff. Mike says he initially had 500 applications for that job, but none of them was the one he wanted. The experienced salesman had to pitch his longtime friend on the opening, and it worked. From Gillette to the Senate, Flip was Mike's secret weapon--not just a staffer, but as Mike tells it, a true partner in service for many years. When Flip passed away much too soon in 2016, this entire institution felt the loss. Mike's staff likes to say he has a whole collection of useful hats he can wear to approach Senate business: the perspective of a mayor or of a small business owner or a State legislator or an accountant or a Wyomingite. Well, that hasn't just been a winning combination for the people of Wyoming. It has benefited our entire country. Mike's trade secret has been what he calls the 80-20 rule. Across all the issues he tackled, he insists about four-fifths of the subject matter is potential common ground ripe for progress. He said: You just can't let the controversial 20 percent blow everything up. Well, that approach made our colleague from Wyoming downright prolific. Mike has been directly responsible for the passage of more than 100 bills. He has become a go-to leader on everything from budget, tax reform, and the deficit to AIDS relief and workplace safety. His sober, prudent approach--not to mention his practical experience keeping the books and making payroll--made Mike exactly the sort of person taxpayers hope are managing their dollars. He used budget resolutions to steer the Federal Government toward more sustainable fiscal help. He helped shepherd the first major overhaul of the Federal Tax Code in a generation. He has keep a watchful eye on the unintended consequences of legislation, such as the recent work to help relieve Main Street lenders from the one-size-fits-all burden of Dodd-Frank. Back when Chairman Enzi was steering the HELP Committee, his Democratic counterpart was Ted Kennedy--a fastidious small-government guy from Wyoming and the ``liberal lion'' from Massachusetts. Call it the 80-20 rule's final exam, and they passed that exam. They worked together to create bipartisan outcomes on things like worker safety, pension reform, and mental health parity. So, to be clear, there has been no lack of conservative conviction in Mike's career. Just ask our Democratic colleagues about the times their debates with Mike landed in the 20 percent, and that is when the gloves came off. This is the Senator one broadcaster in 2013 called ``the Paul Revere of ObamaCare.'' But Mike never lost sight of the mission. He kept up the hunt for common ground, autism research, vocational training, and carried the torch for PEPFAR, the historic fight against AIDS in Africa. Mike's insatiable appetite for making a difference brought some interesting characters into his life. It turned out that quite a few high-profile celebrities were happy to meet with one of this body's chief champions on the AIDS issue. But let the record reflect that east coast, Washington, DC, life never spoiled Mike. I heard from a reliable source that after wrapping up one meeting with Bono, the world-famous front man of U2 and a leader in the fight against AIDS, Mike cheerfully offered the following parting remark to the well-established superstar: ``Well . . . good luck with the band!'' If you have seen Mike in action around the Senate--devouring details, mastering issue after issue--it is hard to imagine him making time for much of anything outside his work. But you would be badly mistaken, because one of the worst kept secrets around the Capitol is that Mike is one of the very warmest Members of the Senate family. As we prepare to bid him farewell, Mike's colleagues may miss his wise leadership on legislation, but I suspect the loss will be greater for future classes of Senate pages, who will be denied the pizza and ice creams parties Mike threw to celebrate their successes. The staff at a favorite nearby Mexican restaurant will miss a couple who, along with the Barrassos and the Grassleys, spent years ranked among their most devoted weekly visitors. More than anything, I know the dedicated staff of the Senate, who don't get thanked enough--from the Parliamentarian's office to food services, to the Capitol Police--will miss the massive holiday cookie parties orchestrated by Field Marshal Diana Enzi. Diana has organized the production of hundreds of dozens of baked treats every year. Mike is more like her assistant in that endeavor. Their unstoppable tradition of giving back to our colleagues, even this year, encapsulates just what kind of hearts this couple shares. As we know, these labors of love come on top of Diana's own important work, like her longtime focus on clearing land mines in Eastern Europe. I don't mean any of this to guilt Mike into staying, because Mike always has his head on straight, his plans laid, and his priorities lined up. So he knows that even on our best days, the Senate can't hold a candle to the joys of the next chapter he and Diana have planned. It turns out that the man whose Senate website includes a page of ``Grandfatherly advice'' is looking forward to more free time for delivering that advice to his own grandkids in person. And I understand there are still several States in which Mike has yet to cast a line. One of the Senate's most intrepid anglers will no longer have to plan around this body's schedule as he seeks to correct this oversight. So, Mike, while all of us here are sorry to see you go, I know our colleagues join me in wishing you ``tight lines.'' We are so glad you broughtyour mind and your heart here to this body. Thank you for sharing your gifts with the country you love. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7247-7 | null | 1,800 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Nathan A. Simington, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for a term of five years from July 1, 2019. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7249-3 | null | 1,801 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Nomination of Nathan Simington Madam President, the Senate will also vote on the nomination of Nathan Simington, a Republican nominee to the FCC. Normally, these nominations to independent Boards and Commissions are paired--one Democrat, one Republican--to keep balance on the board, but here in the waning days of a lameduck Presidency, the Republican majority is rushing to approve a single Republican nominee. The nominee himself is far from uncontroversial. Mr. Simington's key qualifications seem to be that he supports President Trump's desired changes to section 230, a law that regulates internet speech. In fact, it appears that he severely misled Senators on the Commerce Committee when he told them that while working for a Federal agency, he played only an administrative role in his Department's petition for the repeal of section 230. It turns out that Mr. Simington was not only pushing the petition himself, he was actively lobbying FOX News to support it for political reasons. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject Mr. Simington's nomination to the FCC. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7250-3 | null | 1,802 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Tribute to Tom Udall Now, let me tell you a little bit about our senior Senator, Tom Udall. One of the first times I ever spent any serious time with Tom Udall was actually on horseback. Tom was serving at the time as the Congressman for northern New Mexico's Third Congressional District, and I was leading a group called the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness. Together, we rode into rugged mesas and canyons east of Las Vegas, NM--that is the original Las Vegas--that I hoped would soon be designated as the Sabinoso Wilderness. It was clear right away that Tom shared my sense of wonder in the outdoors and wild places and a strong commitment to protect those precious landscapes for future generations, and despite his day job walking the Halls of Congress, he was pretty comfortable on that horse of his--much more so than myself. More than a decade later, Tom and I would repeat that horseback ride in Sabinoso, alongside President Trump's then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. We were both serving in the Senate by this point. We had successfullyworked together to establish not just the Sabinoso Wilderness but also the Ojito Wilderness, the Columbine-Hondo, the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. Now we were working to convince Secretary Zinke--someone I might describe as a bit of a wilderness skeptic--to sign off on the Bureau of Land Management's acceptance of a generous land donation by the Wilderness Land Trust. This land donation would finally open up public access to the spectacular opportunities in the Sabinoso, which was then actually completely landlocked by private lands, and it would substantially grow the Sabinoso Wilderness area. A couple of hours of both of us riding into Canyon Largo alongside Secretary Zinke, alongside local sportsmen and public lands advocates and community-elected leaders, accomplished what months of testy congressional hearings and office meetings and phone calls here in Washington, DC, could not. Just days after his visit, Secretary Zinke announced that his reservations over accepting new wilderness were assuaged and that he would approve the donation at the Department of Interior. Thanks to those efforts and that horseback ride, for years to come, all New Mexicans and all Americans will be able to visit this stunning wilderness that we all own together. This story is but one example from Senator Udall's long career that demonstrates how bringing people together, even those who may have major disagreements--especially about politics--can still help to find common ground and forge a path forward. That is one of the main lessons that I will always take with me about the example that Senator Udall has set as such a principled leader. Tom has devoted his entire career to serving the people of my State. As our State's attorney general, Tom took on major challenges, from curbing pervasive drunk driving to domestic violence, to prosecuting unethical and corrupt elected officials and protecting consumers and seniors from all manner of predatory scams. Then, during his 10 years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom fought to deliver for northern New Mexico's communities. He stood firmly against the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy. He opposed the misguided invasion of Iraq. He called on Congress to rein in the civil liberties abuses in the PATRIOT Act. Tom was first elected to serve our State in the U.S. Senate in the exact same year that I was first elected to Congress. It has been a privilege to sit in a front-row seat during this time while he led our State's congressional delegation. I believe that all of us in this body can agree that there are few greater examples than Tom Udall in embodying the best of what it means to be a Senator. Over his two terms in this Chamber, Tom has showed us all how to act--to act with decency, to act with integrity; how to stay true to your principles but also how to find the deliberative compromises that have become all too rare in today's Senate. Tom knows that to get anything done, especially in this era of extremely polarized party politics, you need to be able to bring people together, to break bread, to have the patience to work through disagreements, and to focus on results, not politics. That was perhaps best demonstrated in his ability to pass a landmark, bipartisan overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act--likely one of the greatest environmental law achievements in the last decade. TSCA is just about the most complicated piece of law that you can possibly imagine; however, the powers that it grants to the Environmental Protection Agency are some of the only things protecting us, standing between us and many harmful chemicals. In the last decade, it became increasingly clear that the original law, which had passed back in the 1970s, was simply no longer effective and required significant reforms, but getting a new law passed had proved to be practically impossible for many Senators who had tried for years to get this done. Because of all the major industry interests, disagreements from various groups, TSCA reform had become one of the many things that conventional wisdom simply said would never get done, especially in today's gridlocked Congress. But Tom did not take no for an answer. He took on the years-long, daunting challenge of convening an incredibly wide range of stakeholders to get the details right and successfully steered a new law all the way to final passage. I believe Tom Udall was successful in this precisely because of the way that he stands up for his principles with moral clarity. At a time when our democracy has felt fragile, Tom has led the way in fighting the corrosive effects of dark money in our politics. He championed voting rights, and he called for rules reforms to make this body, to make this Senate work for ``we the people'' once again. Through his role on the Foreign Relations Committee, Tom has held administrations from both parties accountable for responsibly exercising American power overseas. He has been a steadfast champion and ally for Indian Country, fighting for water access, education, healthcare, and law enforcement resources for Tribal nations. For years, Tom has called on us to finally confront the climate crisis that threatens New Mexico's land and water and, frankly, the future of our country and our planet. I have been so proud to partner with Tom over these last years to pass landmark protections for the natural resources and public lands that we in New Mexico all treasure. Our children and future generations will see the legacy of Tom's conservation work for years to come. Finally, it goes almost without saying, but I am confident that Tom's leaving the Senate will not mean leaving behind his lifetime commitment to service--in fact, far from it. Whatever his next chapter brings, I am certain that Tom will never stop looking for ways to help the people of New Mexico, although I do hope he will find the time to get outside, to spend time in a remote mountain pass from time to time or on a fast flowing river. It has truly been the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside Senator Udall for these last 12 years and to fight together to deliver resources and results for New Mexicans. Thank you, Tom, for everything that you have taught me and for everything that you and Jill have done for New Mexicans and for Americans. Julie and I certainly wish you the best in this next chapter in your life, and it has truly been my honor. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7253 | null | 1,803 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Tribute to Tom Udall Now, let me tell you a little bit about our senior Senator, Tom Udall. One of the first times I ever spent any serious time with Tom Udall was actually on horseback. Tom was serving at the time as the Congressman for northern New Mexico's Third Congressional District, and I was leading a group called the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness. Together, we rode into rugged mesas and canyons east of Las Vegas, NM--that is the original Las Vegas--that I hoped would soon be designated as the Sabinoso Wilderness. It was clear right away that Tom shared my sense of wonder in the outdoors and wild places and a strong commitment to protect those precious landscapes for future generations, and despite his day job walking the Halls of Congress, he was pretty comfortable on that horse of his--much more so than myself. More than a decade later, Tom and I would repeat that horseback ride in Sabinoso, alongside President Trump's then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. We were both serving in the Senate by this point. We had successfullyworked together to establish not just the Sabinoso Wilderness but also the Ojito Wilderness, the Columbine-Hondo, the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. Now we were working to convince Secretary Zinke--someone I might describe as a bit of a wilderness skeptic--to sign off on the Bureau of Land Management's acceptance of a generous land donation by the Wilderness Land Trust. This land donation would finally open up public access to the spectacular opportunities in the Sabinoso, which was then actually completely landlocked by private lands, and it would substantially grow the Sabinoso Wilderness area. A couple of hours of both of us riding into Canyon Largo alongside Secretary Zinke, alongside local sportsmen and public lands advocates and community-elected leaders, accomplished what months of testy congressional hearings and office meetings and phone calls here in Washington, DC, could not. Just days after his visit, Secretary Zinke announced that his reservations over accepting new wilderness were assuaged and that he would approve the donation at the Department of Interior. Thanks to those efforts and that horseback ride, for years to come, all New Mexicans and all Americans will be able to visit this stunning wilderness that we all own together. This story is but one example from Senator Udall's long career that demonstrates how bringing people together, even those who may have major disagreements--especially about politics--can still help to find common ground and forge a path forward. That is one of the main lessons that I will always take with me about the example that Senator Udall has set as such a principled leader. Tom has devoted his entire career to serving the people of my State. As our State's attorney general, Tom took on major challenges, from curbing pervasive drunk driving to domestic violence, to prosecuting unethical and corrupt elected officials and protecting consumers and seniors from all manner of predatory scams. Then, during his 10 years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom fought to deliver for northern New Mexico's communities. He stood firmly against the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy. He opposed the misguided invasion of Iraq. He called on Congress to rein in the civil liberties abuses in the PATRIOT Act. Tom was first elected to serve our State in the U.S. Senate in the exact same year that I was first elected to Congress. It has been a privilege to sit in a front-row seat during this time while he led our State's congressional delegation. I believe that all of us in this body can agree that there are few greater examples than Tom Udall in embodying the best of what it means to be a Senator. Over his two terms in this Chamber, Tom has showed us all how to act--to act with decency, to act with integrity; how to stay true to your principles but also how to find the deliberative compromises that have become all too rare in today's Senate. Tom knows that to get anything done, especially in this era of extremely polarized party politics, you need to be able to bring people together, to break bread, to have the patience to work through disagreements, and to focus on results, not politics. That was perhaps best demonstrated in his ability to pass a landmark, bipartisan overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act--likely one of the greatest environmental law achievements in the last decade. TSCA is just about the most complicated piece of law that you can possibly imagine; however, the powers that it grants to the Environmental Protection Agency are some of the only things protecting us, standing between us and many harmful chemicals. In the last decade, it became increasingly clear that the original law, which had passed back in the 1970s, was simply no longer effective and required significant reforms, but getting a new law passed had proved to be practically impossible for many Senators who had tried for years to get this done. Because of all the major industry interests, disagreements from various groups, TSCA reform had become one of the many things that conventional wisdom simply said would never get done, especially in today's gridlocked Congress. But Tom did not take no for an answer. He took on the years-long, daunting challenge of convening an incredibly wide range of stakeholders to get the details right and successfully steered a new law all the way to final passage. I believe Tom Udall was successful in this precisely because of the way that he stands up for his principles with moral clarity. At a time when our democracy has felt fragile, Tom has led the way in fighting the corrosive effects of dark money in our politics. He championed voting rights, and he called for rules reforms to make this body, to make this Senate work for ``we the people'' once again. Through his role on the Foreign Relations Committee, Tom has held administrations from both parties accountable for responsibly exercising American power overseas. He has been a steadfast champion and ally for Indian Country, fighting for water access, education, healthcare, and law enforcement resources for Tribal nations. For years, Tom has called on us to finally confront the climate crisis that threatens New Mexico's land and water and, frankly, the future of our country and our planet. I have been so proud to partner with Tom over these last years to pass landmark protections for the natural resources and public lands that we in New Mexico all treasure. Our children and future generations will see the legacy of Tom's conservation work for years to come. Finally, it goes almost without saying, but I am confident that Tom's leaving the Senate will not mean leaving behind his lifetime commitment to service--in fact, far from it. Whatever his next chapter brings, I am certain that Tom will never stop looking for ways to help the people of New Mexico, although I do hope he will find the time to get outside, to spend time in a remote mountain pass from time to time or on a fast flowing river. It has truly been the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside Senator Udall for these last 12 years and to fight together to deliver resources and results for New Mexicans. Thank you, Tom, for everything that you have taught me and for everything that you and Jill have done for New Mexicans and for Americans. Julie and I certainly wish you the best in this next chapter in your life, and it has truly been my honor. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7253 | null | 1,804 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have a vote coming up--it could be the end of this week--that has to do with the arms sales to the United Arab Emirates. I strongly support this; however, some of my colleagues do not support it, and there is now a joint resolution of disapproval. I would hope that we would really stop and think about that because this is a very significant thing that we are talking about. The agreement between Israel and UAE is one of the Abraham Accords. It is a very significant one. It is one that President Trump was able to get together with the two countries, Israel and UAE, and it is really a great thing. It is a major breakthrough in the Middle East. He has done a lot of great things, the President has. I know he is controversial, but in terms of his energy policy, the military, and the economy he has been right on target. So anyway, Arab-Israeli peace is not unprecedented, but the agreement between Israel and the UAE has moved further and faster than any other agreements that preceded it in the past. It seems that the UAE and Israel are finding new areas of cooperation almost every day. They are now working together on security, pandemic response, education, and even media. This partnership is deep and reflects the growing acceptance of our friend Israel in the region. Most importantly, it did not require Israel to do anything. They didn't have to give up anything. So this is a major, major achievement. Now is the time to take advantage of the gains that we have. President Trump has treated Israel like a friend, and other countries have rushed in to that friendship. We have several other countries in Africa and in the Middle East who are joined in with Israel that have never been there before. The sale ensures that Israel's qualitative military edge is not affected. We know this because the Israelis themselves have said this. Moreover, this sale deepens the UAE's partnership with the United States and prevents it from turning toward China and Russia. Now, this is the problem that we have. If we don't do this, if we don't cooperate with these countries in the Middle East, then you are going to have China and Russia out there taking advantage of it. The UAE is worthy of this sale because it is strongly aligned with the United States in the Middle East. It is a vital counterterrorism partner. The UAE has fought alongside our troops in Afghanistan and against ISIS. They have been our friend for a long time. It is also vital to the U.S. efforts against Iran--both Iran's ambition of regional dominance and its support for terrorist proxies. Voting down this sale would signal to our partners that even when they do everything that we ask--fight alongside our soldiers, pursue shared interests in the region, and make meaningful peace with Israel--the United States won't have their backs. This is not the reputation that we want to gain. The truth is, they are reliable, and we appreciate that. We are reliable, and the United States has long stood with its partner Israel against its adversary, the Iranian regime. This sale to the UAE is consistent with that approach. Nobody here would support it if Israel were not on board, but they are on board. What is more, they will bolster our longstanding efforts to counter Iran's nefarious regional activities. The UAE is a strong partner that already has cutting-edge technology from our F-16 activity. They have been using that fighter aircraft for a long period of time, and this sale of the F-35 fighter jet is a continuation of that partnership. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the sale and to oppose the joint resolution of disapproval. A vote against the resolution is a vote for peace in the Middle East. A vote for this resolution is a vote to give Iran, China, and Russia more power and influence in that region, and it would make our world less safe. It would send a message, also, around the world that we don't support our friends. It is a very significant vote to take place for the successes we have had in the Middle East, and I encourage people to oppose the resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7266 | null | 1,805 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when you are new to the U.S. Senate, it is not unusual for friends and people back home, after you have been there a while, to say: So who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the Senate? Who are the ones you really like and what can you tell us about the rest of them? It is a common question that is asked, and I do remember, as a new Senator here, reflecting on that question and saying: You know, if I had an important decision to make in the Senate, whatever the issue might be, there are two Senators whom I always want to sit down and get their advice. One was Carl Levin of Michigan--one of the most thoughtful, smart guys I had a chance to serve with, and the other was Paul Sarbanes. He just always struck me as a man of substance, who took questions seriously. He was respected in the U.S. Senate for his service, of course, to Maryland, and he was just a good person. He brought real integrity to the U.S. Senate. So when I learned that he passed away just a few days ago, I wanted to put a few things in the Record. He was a man of towering intellect and integrity, but he was modest. He didn't care about headlines. He did so much good work behind the scenes. He was given some of the toughest assignments. Think about the responsibility of dealing with the great recession and then working with Republican Congressman Oxley to put together a really significant reform of Wall Street and the financial community. We knew we could trust Paul Sarbanes to do it, and he did it in a bipartisan fashion. He was a proud son of immigrants. He never forgot it. His parents emigrated from the same town in Greece but only met in America. The Sarbanes owned a famous restaurant in Salisbury, MD, and gave it the quintessentially American name--the Mayflower Restaurant. Paul worked in the restaurant as a boy, and he and his family lived above the restaurant. He graduated from public high school, won a scholarship to Princeton University, studied as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University, and in 1960 earned a law degree from Harvard. Not bad for an immigrant's son. From Harvard, Paul went to the White House, where he was one of the best and brightest who answered President John Kennedy's call to public service. There, he worked as an administrative assistant to Walter Heller, who was Chairman of President Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisers. Paul Sarbanes' parents taught him that serving one's nation in public service was a noble calling. One of the many Greek words Paul Sarbanes learned from his parents was the word ``idiotes.'' It is the Greek root word for the English word ``idiot,'' but it has a different meaning in Greek. It means someone who takes no part in the affairs of his community. In the Sarbanes family, that was almost a curse. Paul and his parents believed that service to others and to their adopted homeland was a noble calling. So Paul first ran for elective office. In 1966, he was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates. In 1970, the people of Maryland elected him to the U.S. House of Representatives. He was a young Congressman when he wrote one of the successful Articles of Impeachment against then-President Nixon for lying about his Watergate burglary. In 1976, he won his first election to the U.S. Senate. He would go on to serve 30 years in the Chamber. He was a voice of reason on both the Senate Iran-Contra and Whitewater committees. When corporate swindling at Enron and other large corporations cheated millions of Americans out of their life savings, it was Paul Sarbanes' leadership that enabled the Senate to pass the most far-reaching corporate accountability reform since the Securities and Exchange Commission was created 70 years before. That Sarbanes-Oxley reform law passed in 2002. It was designed to prevent the kind of corporate abuses that had so damaged America's economy and shaken the faith of the American people in the economic markets. In 2002, things came full circle for me. There was created an award in the name of Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois--a man whom I first met as a college intern who inspired me to get started in this business. Paul Sarbanes won in 2002 and became the first recipient of the Senator Paul Douglas Ethics in Government Award that is presented by the University of Illinois to honor men and women in public service who exhibit the finest qualities of leadership. It was a perfect match, and, for me, it came full circle. What a coincidence it is that the people who have been my heroes in public life so far, so many are named Paul: Paul Douglas, who had started me as an intern, who introduced me to Paul Simon, who preceded me in the U.S. Senate, where I served with Paul Sarbanes. They basically say in my office that I have been raised according to the Gospel of ``Saints'' Paul. I want to quote briefly from Senator Sarbanes' final speech in the Senate before he retired in 2006. It speaks powerfully to the kind of leaders America is looking for today. Here is what Paul Sarbanes said: Throughout my years in public service, I have worked to the limits of my ability to provide the people of Maryland and the Nation dedicated, informed, and independent representation based upon the fundamental principles of integrity and intelligence. I have been guided in this effort by a vision of a decent and just America, based on a strong sense of community and offering fairness and opportunity to all its people. I know I join all my colleagues in thanking Paul for doing his part so nobly and so well to help us move toward a more perfect Union. And let me say a word about his wife Christine. She was his real partner in life. I can recall when he retired, and I said: Paul, I am sorry to see you go. And he said: Let me ask you a question. When are you supposed to leave around here? It is a question many of us have asked ourselves over and over. As far as he was concerned, I said: What do you want to do the most? He said: Travel with Christine. They were able to do that for a limited period of time because Christine died of cancer in 2009. She was a wonderful person--intelligent, just like Paul--and the two of them were pure happiness together. Loretta and I wish to express our condolences to the Sarbanes family, especially to their children--Michael, Janet, and a man I have come to know and respect, his son, Congressman John Sarbanes, as well as their grandchildren, his friends and former staff members, and the countless people whose lives are better because of Paul Sarbanes. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7267 | null | 1,806 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when you are new to the U.S. Senate, it is not unusual for friends and people back home, after you have been there a while, to say: So who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the Senate? Who are the ones you really like and what can you tell us about the rest of them? It is a common question that is asked, and I do remember, as a new Senator here, reflecting on that question and saying: You know, if I had an important decision to make in the Senate, whatever the issue might be, there are two Senators whom I always want to sit down and get their advice. One was Carl Levin of Michigan--one of the most thoughtful, smart guys I had a chance to serve with, and the other was Paul Sarbanes. He just always struck me as a man of substance, who took questions seriously. He was respected in the U.S. Senate for his service, of course, to Maryland, and he was just a good person. He brought real integrity to the U.S. Senate. So when I learned that he passed away just a few days ago, I wanted to put a few things in the Record. He was a man of towering intellect and integrity, but he was modest. He didn't care about headlines. He did so much good work behind the scenes. He was given some of the toughest assignments. Think about the responsibility of dealing with the great recession and then working with Republican Congressman Oxley to put together a really significant reform of Wall Street and the financial community. We knew we could trust Paul Sarbanes to do it, and he did it in a bipartisan fashion. He was a proud son of immigrants. He never forgot it. His parents emigrated from the same town in Greece but only met in America. The Sarbanes owned a famous restaurant in Salisbury, MD, and gave it the quintessentially American name--the Mayflower Restaurant. Paul worked in the restaurant as a boy, and he and his family lived above the restaurant. He graduated from public high school, won a scholarship to Princeton University, studied as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University, and in 1960 earned a law degree from Harvard. Not bad for an immigrant's son. From Harvard, Paul went to the White House, where he was one of the best and brightest who answered President John Kennedy's call to public service. There, he worked as an administrative assistant to Walter Heller, who was Chairman of President Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisers. Paul Sarbanes' parents taught him that serving one's nation in public service was a noble calling. One of the many Greek words Paul Sarbanes learned from his parents was the word ``idiotes.'' It is the Greek root word for the English word ``idiot,'' but it has a different meaning in Greek. It means someone who takes no part in the affairs of his community. In the Sarbanes family, that was almost a curse. Paul and his parents believed that service to others and to their adopted homeland was a noble calling. So Paul first ran for elective office. In 1966, he was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates. In 1970, the people of Maryland elected him to the U.S. House of Representatives. He was a young Congressman when he wrote one of the successful Articles of Impeachment against then-President Nixon for lying about his Watergate burglary. In 1976, he won his first election to the U.S. Senate. He would go on to serve 30 years in the Chamber. He was a voice of reason on both the Senate Iran-Contra and Whitewater committees. When corporate swindling at Enron and other large corporations cheated millions of Americans out of their life savings, it was Paul Sarbanes' leadership that enabled the Senate to pass the most far-reaching corporate accountability reform since the Securities and Exchange Commission was created 70 years before. That Sarbanes-Oxley reform law passed in 2002. It was designed to prevent the kind of corporate abuses that had so damaged America's economy and shaken the faith of the American people in the economic markets. In 2002, things came full circle for me. There was created an award in the name of Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois--a man whom I first met as a college intern who inspired me to get started in this business. Paul Sarbanes won in 2002 and became the first recipient of the Senator Paul Douglas Ethics in Government Award that is presented by the University of Illinois to honor men and women in public service who exhibit the finest qualities of leadership. It was a perfect match, and, for me, it came full circle. What a coincidence it is that the people who have been my heroes in public life so far, so many are named Paul: Paul Douglas, who had started me as an intern, who introduced me to Paul Simon, who preceded me in the U.S. Senate, where I served with Paul Sarbanes. They basically say in my office that I have been raised according to the Gospel of ``Saints'' Paul. I want to quote briefly from Senator Sarbanes' final speech in the Senate before he retired in 2006. It speaks powerfully to the kind of leaders America is looking for today. Here is what Paul Sarbanes said: Throughout my years in public service, I have worked to the limits of my ability to provide the people of Maryland and the Nation dedicated, informed, and independent representation based upon the fundamental principles of integrity and intelligence. I have been guided in this effort by a vision of a decent and just America, based on a strong sense of community and offering fairness and opportunity to all its people. I know I join all my colleagues in thanking Paul for doing his part so nobly and so well to help us move toward a more perfect Union. And let me say a word about his wife Christine. She was his real partner in life. I can recall when he retired, and I said: Paul, I am sorry to see you go. And he said: Let me ask you a question. When are you supposed to leave around here? It is a question many of us have asked ourselves over and over. As far as he was concerned, I said: What do you want to do the most? He said: Travel with Christine. They were able to do that for a limited period of time because Christine died of cancer in 2009. She was a wonderful person--intelligent, just like Paul--and the two of them were pure happiness together. Loretta and I wish to express our condolences to the Sarbanes family, especially to their children--Michael, Janet, and a man I have come to know and respect, his son, Congressman John Sarbanes, as well as their grandchildren, his friends and former staff members, and the countless people whose lives are better because of Paul Sarbanes. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7267 | null | 1,807 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, this week, I hope we are able to make more progress on the coronavirus relief negotiations so we can pass another bill before recessing for the holidays. There are a lot of people in this country, all throughout the country, who are hurting, who are anxious, and who are worried about their ability to pay the rent and to meet their other obligations in the face of this pandemic, and I think it would be a dereliction of duty on our part to leave here without addressing those real needs. Earlier this year, we worked in a quick, bipartisan fashion to pass relief bills totaling more than $3 trillion. Thinking back on it, it was pretty remarkable to do as much as we did as fast as we did, but we knew we were up against a common enemy in this virus, and we knew we had to respond quickly, and we did. The funding we provided has gone a long way to support our healthcare and economic response, but as our war against COVID-19 continues to rage on, additional support is needed, and it is needed now. The good news is, as earlier, there are a number of areas that we agree on what the support should look like, including funding for schools, assistance for the hardest hit workers and small businesses, and another investment in the distribution of the vaccine that can't come soon enough, but we remain hung up on a couple of important points, including liability protection for businesses, schools, nonprofits, and others who in good faith did their best to follow guidance from the CDC and other public health authorities but now face the prospect of litigation. It is pretty hard to follow the guidance as knowledge of this virus has evolved. I remember before April, the head of the CDC, including Dr. Fauci and others, said that masks were useless. Then they changed their guidance in April. That is fine. I respect that based on what we have learned about the virus. But we simply can't expose people who have tried their best to muddle along in the face of this pandemic, following the guidance from public health officials, and say: You didn't know then what we know now, so you must have been negligent, and you need to pay compensation in the form of litigation. Well, I don't think that is fair to those entities, those individuals, those businesses, those schools, those churches, mosques, and synagogues. But this is something that is on the minds of a lot of people, from healthcare workers, to teachers, to nonprofits, to small business owners. Those who continue to provide essential services and goods didn't have any choice but to show up and go to work. Now they are worried that by opening their doors to people who really needed their help at the time, they have also now opened themselves up to an endless parade of lawsuits by the trial bar. We all know that lawyers can be very creative and opportunistic. That is part of what lawyering involves. But the litigation we expect against doctors, nurses, colleges, churches, small businesses--anyone and everyone could be blamed for another person's harm. If those lawsuits are feasible, they will follow. And the statute of limitations is a couple years, so even though we are not necessarily seeing it now, we do know that class action litigation could be filed in any favorable jurisdiction anywhere in the country and basically bankrupt many businesses and certainly discourage businesses from safely reopening and following those guidelines. I think there is another reason to reward people who have tried their best to follow those guidelines--because it ensures more compliance. To now play a game of ``gotcha'' with them and say: It wasn't good enough, so now you are going to have to pay or maybe even just defend a lawsuit that you ultimately will win--we all know that will cost a lot of money and will take a lot of time, and I would prefer to see them rebuild their businesses and restore the jobs that were lost as a result of the pandemic So because of my concern about the need for some liability shield, we introduced a bill called the SAFE TO WORK Act that provides commonsense protections for those who acted in good faith to keep their customers and their employees safe, while still preserving the right to sue for those who were victims of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. This is not a blanket liability shield that won't permit the really truly bad actors from facing due consequences. It won't ban coronavirus lawsuits, and it won't give anyone a get-out-of-jail-free card. So we need to get that straight up front. In cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, where the applicable public health guidelines were not followed, the person affected has every right to sue and be made whole in a court of law. No one is asking to change that. What we do need, though, is to put safeguards in place to ensure that those who operated in good faith and were following all the relevant guidelines, even as they evolved over time, cannot be sued out of existence. First and foremost are protections for our incredible healthcare heroes who made tremendous physical and mental sacrifices over the last several months. This legislation sets a willful misconduct or gross negligence standard for coronavirus-related medical liability suits to ensure that only legitimate cases are brought against our healthcare workers who, again, didn't have any choice but to show up for work. In addition to protecting our healthcare heroes, we need to ensure that a fear of lawsuits doesn't prevent schools, nonprofits, churches, small businesses, and a range of other organizations and institutions that are vital to our communities and our economy from opening their doors. This spells out in black and white that these entities will be protected from COVID-19 exposure claims as long as they comply with mandatory public health guidelines. It is true that a number of States have already provided similar protections, including the minority leader's home State of New York, and it is time that we extend these liability limitations to the rest of the country, particularly States like mine where the legislature does not meet on a continual basis. They haven't even been in session during 2020. They will go into session in January, and I presume they will try to fill in any holes they feel like we left when it comes to liability protection. But without a uniform Federal standard, we are going to end up in a dangerous venue shopping situation, and it is only to be expected that the lawyers will find the place most favorable for their lawsuits. They will seek to pursue those claims using class action procedures, and we will be right back at the worst nightmare that I think many folks would have contemplated unless we provide for this Federal liability shield. The goal is not to protect bad actors. What we do need to clearly spell out is for the schools, colleges, nonprofits, churches, and businesses that are asking us to provide them some guidance and some security. Our Democratic colleagues have not expressed a lot of enthusiasm for this legislation, and my Republican colleagues and I have tried to work with them to reach a result that both sides can support. But the nature of compromise, as we all know, is give-and-take, but so far it has been pretty much one-sided. We have offered changes to appease our Democratic colleagues' concerns while still preserving the basic goal of the legislation, but the truth is, they really haven't moved much in any meaningful way. I think the truth is that our country's long-term economic recovery from this virus depends on these liability protections in large part. Businesses doing the best they can during a worldwide emergency should not face bankruptcy because of concerns about the trial bar. I mean, who are we here working for--the American people or for lawyers who--and this isn't necessarily designed to be a criticism--who are looking out for their own economic interests first and foremost? Our view must be much broader than that, and the greatest good for the greatest number I think should be our guiding principle. Our essential workers and institutions need to know that if they have been operating in good faith and obeying the guidelines that have been promulgated by the public health authorities, they won't be subjected to litigation, and only Congress can provide that certainty. Now, this is not a permanent Federal takeover of State tort law by any means. It really is comparable to what we did after Y2K--or in the run up to Y2K--and also with other nationalemergencies like 9/11. We have even given some protection to pharmaceutical companies, which we have asked to take risks to come up with world-class vaccines and therapies, to encourage them and to incentivize them to do that because we know it is in the public interest. But across the country, we are already seeing these lawsuits rolling in, and without action from Congress, we are going to emerge from this pandemic only to find ourselves in not another wave of the virus but in a second wave of litigation that will be devastating for many. In order for our country and our economy to recover, these workers and these institutions need to know that they can follow the guidelines and then safely reopen their doors and do their jobs with confidence. They need to know that if they follow these guidelines and act in good faith, they won't be subjected to perhaps business-ending litigation that could tie them up in court and drain their remaining resources dry. As I have said, the way we reach agreements around here is through bipartisan negotiations. It took a little compromise, and neither side achieved 100 percent of what they wanted, but we eventually have gotten there. We have done that four times in the coronavirus response, and I hope we can do it again here. I hope our Democratic colleagues will approach these negotiations with the gravity they deserve. We can't leave people waiting and wondering what their future looks like any longer if there is something we can do to provide them some safety and security and some confidence about what the future may look like. I hope we will all work together to deliver these critical liability protections for folks across the country in all 50 States. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7268-2 | null | 1,808 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last 4 years, we have seen a series of encouraging developments in the Middle East--a place where there isn't a long trend line of positive developments. We have destroyed the ISIS caliphate. We have brought down dangerous terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and, of course, the head of the IRGC, Soleimani, who was personally responsible for American blood on his hands, particularly providing explosives that penetrated our armor in Iraq. Through congressional action and the work of the Trump administration, we strengthened bilateral ties with our closest friends and allies, including Israel and Jordan. This summer, the administration helped forge historic peace deals between Israel and Arab nations in the region. The United Arab Emirates became the third Arab country and first Gulf State to recognize and normalize relations with Israel by the signing of the Abraham Accords Peace Agreement. It was only a matter of days until Bahrain followed suit and announced its agreement with Israel to open formal diplomatic negotiations. These historic breakthroughs represent serious progress in our efforts to fight terrorism and establish lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. While more work obviously remains, it is great to see the mounting pressure against Iran--the region's greatest antagonist and largest state sponsor of terrorism. Last month, the Trump administration announced that it intended to sell arms to our friends in the United Arab Emirates--a move that I support. This will help the UAE work with the United States and our friends to deter and defend these threats from Iran and other hostilities in the region. What it seems to me is that it focused everybody's attention on the recognition that Iran represents the single biggest destabilizing and dangerous influence in the Middle East today, and it is the recognition that they are the common adversary of not only the Arab nations in the region but also the United States and our ally Israel that has, I think, brought them to the negotiating table. As Iran grows increasingly belligerent toward the United States and our allies, these military assets that we will sell to our friends in the UAE will serve as a stabilizing force, a force multiplier, and a source of protection for the United States and our security interests. We have learned a hard lesson that American boots on the ground is something we want to do as a last resort. But if we can work by, with, and through our friends and allies to provide that security and stability against a common enemy, we should do it. The arms sale will allow greater military cooperation between the United States, the UAE, and Israel and strengthen a growing coalition of aligned forces in the region. It will also make sure the United States remains the partner of choice. It is not as if the United States is the only one that has a say. Obviously, if we don't provide them the military equipment they need, they will go looking for other sellers, and that would certainly be less desirable for us and for them because we are their partner of choice in the region. Russia and particularly China have sought to increase their malign influence in the Middle East, and they would be more than happy to fill the void left by any refusal on the part of the United States to make this sale. So blocking this sale would only strengthen the position of China and Russia, while significantly weakening our own. As we continue to make progress in the decades-long quest for peace and stability in the Middle East, I support the administration's strategic decision to sell arms to the UAE. This would provide the UAE with critical national security assets, such as access to the F-35 fifth-generation fighter, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other advanced munitions to act as a deterrent, and if worse comes to worse, it actually gives them a comparative advantage with other countries in the region. The Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, perhaps summed it up best when he said: What keeps me up at night is actually not the proposed F-35 sale to the Emirates. What keeps me up at night is the idea that somebody would return to the nuclear deal with Iran | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7268 | null | 1,809 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last 4 years, we have seen a series of encouraging developments in the Middle East--a place where there isn't a long trend line of positive developments. We have destroyed the ISIS caliphate. We have brought down dangerous terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and, of course, the head of the IRGC, Soleimani, who was personally responsible for American blood on his hands, particularly providing explosives that penetrated our armor in Iraq. Through congressional action and the work of the Trump administration, we strengthened bilateral ties with our closest friends and allies, including Israel and Jordan. This summer, the administration helped forge historic peace deals between Israel and Arab nations in the region. The United Arab Emirates became the third Arab country and first Gulf State to recognize and normalize relations with Israel by the signing of the Abraham Accords Peace Agreement. It was only a matter of days until Bahrain followed suit and announced its agreement with Israel to open formal diplomatic negotiations. These historic breakthroughs represent serious progress in our efforts to fight terrorism and establish lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. While more work obviously remains, it is great to see the mounting pressure against Iran--the region's greatest antagonist and largest state sponsor of terrorism. Last month, the Trump administration announced that it intended to sell arms to our friends in the United Arab Emirates--a move that I support. This will help the UAE work with the United States and our friends to deter and defend these threats from Iran and other hostilities in the region. What it seems to me is that it focused everybody's attention on the recognition that Iran represents the single biggest destabilizing and dangerous influence in the Middle East today, and it is the recognition that they are the common adversary of not only the Arab nations in the region but also the United States and our ally Israel that has, I think, brought them to the negotiating table. As Iran grows increasingly belligerent toward the United States and our allies, these military assets that we will sell to our friends in the UAE will serve as a stabilizing force, a force multiplier, and a source of protection for the United States and our security interests. We have learned a hard lesson that American boots on the ground is something we want to do as a last resort. But if we can work by, with, and through our friends and allies to provide that security and stability against a common enemy, we should do it. The arms sale will allow greater military cooperation between the United States, the UAE, and Israel and strengthen a growing coalition of aligned forces in the region. It will also make sure the United States remains the partner of choice. It is not as if the United States is the only one that has a say. Obviously, if we don't provide them the military equipment they need, they will go looking for other sellers, and that would certainly be less desirable for us and for them because we are their partner of choice in the region. Russia and particularly China have sought to increase their malign influence in the Middle East, and they would be more than happy to fill the void left by any refusal on the part of the United States to make this sale. So blocking this sale would only strengthen the position of China and Russia, while significantly weakening our own. As we continue to make progress in the decades-long quest for peace and stability in the Middle East, I support the administration's strategic decision to sell arms to the UAE. This would provide the UAE with critical national security assets, such as access to the F-35 fifth-generation fighter, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other advanced munitions to act as a deterrent, and if worse comes to worse, it actually gives them a comparative advantage with other countries in the region. The Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, perhaps summed it up best when he said: What keeps me up at night is actually not the proposed F-35 sale to the Emirates. What keeps me up at night is the idea that somebody would return to the nuclear deal with Iran | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7268 | null | 1,810 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last 4 years, we have seen a series of encouraging developments in the Middle East--a place where there isn't a long trend line of positive developments. We have destroyed the ISIS caliphate. We have brought down dangerous terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and, of course, the head of the IRGC, Soleimani, who was personally responsible for American blood on his hands, particularly providing explosives that penetrated our armor in Iraq. Through congressional action and the work of the Trump administration, we strengthened bilateral ties with our closest friends and allies, including Israel and Jordan. This summer, the administration helped forge historic peace deals between Israel and Arab nations in the region. The United Arab Emirates became the third Arab country and first Gulf State to recognize and normalize relations with Israel by the signing of the Abraham Accords Peace Agreement. It was only a matter of days until Bahrain followed suit and announced its agreement with Israel to open formal diplomatic negotiations. These historic breakthroughs represent serious progress in our efforts to fight terrorism and establish lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. While more work obviously remains, it is great to see the mounting pressure against Iran--the region's greatest antagonist and largest state sponsor of terrorism. Last month, the Trump administration announced that it intended to sell arms to our friends in the United Arab Emirates--a move that I support. This will help the UAE work with the United States and our friends to deter and defend these threats from Iran and other hostilities in the region. What it seems to me is that it focused everybody's attention on the recognition that Iran represents the single biggest destabilizing and dangerous influence in the Middle East today, and it is the recognition that they are the common adversary of not only the Arab nations in the region but also the United States and our ally Israel that has, I think, brought them to the negotiating table. As Iran grows increasingly belligerent toward the United States and our allies, these military assets that we will sell to our friends in the UAE will serve as a stabilizing force, a force multiplier, and a source of protection for the United States and our security interests. We have learned a hard lesson that American boots on the ground is something we want to do as a last resort. But if we can work by, with, and through our friends and allies to provide that security and stability against a common enemy, we should do it. The arms sale will allow greater military cooperation between the United States, the UAE, and Israel and strengthen a growing coalition of aligned forces in the region. It will also make sure the United States remains the partner of choice. It is not as if the United States is the only one that has a say. Obviously, if we don't provide them the military equipment they need, they will go looking for other sellers, and that would certainly be less desirable for us and for them because we are their partner of choice in the region. Russia and particularly China have sought to increase their malign influence in the Middle East, and they would be more than happy to fill the void left by any refusal on the part of the United States to make this sale. So blocking this sale would only strengthen the position of China and Russia, while significantly weakening our own. As we continue to make progress in the decades-long quest for peace and stability in the Middle East, I support the administration's strategic decision to sell arms to the UAE. This would provide the UAE with critical national security assets, such as access to the F-35 fifth-generation fighter, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other advanced munitions to act as a deterrent, and if worse comes to worse, it actually gives them a comparative advantage with other countries in the region. The Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, perhaps summed it up best when he said: What keeps me up at night is actually not the proposed F-35 sale to the Emirates. What keeps me up at night is the idea that somebody would return to the nuclear deal with Iran | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7268 | null | 1,811 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk again about the need for Congress to act to pass a COVID-19 bill that helps the people we represent. I am told this is the 20th time I have come to the floor to make this plea, meaning that I haven't been all that convincing, I guess. But the reality is there is hope in the air. There is a bipartisan group that is working on a package. I am part of that group, as is the Presiding Officer. It is bipartisan: about five Democrats, about five Republicans. Maybe more significantly, today the White House apparently made an offer to Speaker Pelosi to reengage in conversation to try to get to a package that meets the needs of everyone. The package that was presented was actually very similar to the package that this bipartisan group has been working on over the past few weeks. So there is hope in the air, and that is good because we need the help, and we need it now. Let's talk for a minute about why we need this help. I would guess that pretty much everybody in this Chamber has seen firsthand the health crisis that we are facing. The number of cases is up. The number of people in intensive care is up. Hospitalizations are up. And, sadly, fatalities have increased. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber have had to fight cases of COVID-19 themselves. Thank God they are all OK. But that is not true with everyone we represent. I would bet that everyone in this Chamber knows somebody and probably multiple people who have had a very tough time or who have even succumbed to this terrible disease. Last week, another friend of mine died because of COVID-19. His name was Mike Crabtree. Mike was a county commissioner in Scioto County, OH--a friend, a standup guy who helped me on a lot of tough issues in Southeast Ohio. He was always there for his community and for me. Today, of course, we offer our prayers to his wife Diane, his family, and to all of his friends in Scioto County. It is personal. In the face of these personal tragedies and the sad reality that in many States we are now experiencing this higher number of cases--in many States it is the highest we have had since the beginning of this pandemic--we do have some promising news on one front, and that is on the vaccine front. It now seems clear that later this month, and then over the next 3 to 4 months, help is on the way in the form of very effective new vaccines being developed by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and other U.S. manufacturers. The unprecedented support that Congress has provided for vaccine development, the Trump administration's innovative approach to cut bureaucratic redtape through what is called Operation Warp Speed, and the commitment and ingenuity of our researchers who have been working around the clock, our scientists, and our manufacturers have combined to put us on a path to having multiple vaccines, at unprecedented speed, with efficacy rates above 90 percent. This is incredible. This is good news. Safe, effective vaccines are expected to be available to frontline healthcare workers, first responders, long-term care facilities, and others just in the next few weeks. This is good news. Within the next few months, we would expect that these vaccines would be more broadly available, and hopefully by March, maybe April, pretty much everybody would be able to find a way to get that vaccine, free, for them and for their family. That has to be our goal here, as quickly as possible, to get safe, effective vaccines. I am concerned--as some of my colleagues know, because I talk about it a lot--that the number of people who say they are willing to get the vaccine is too low. That is one reason I entered one of the trials myself. I am in the Janssen J&J trial. I either got the vaccine or I got a placebo--I don't know--but I did it to be able to go out and talk about it and tell people that these scientists, these experts, the people with the white coats, not the politicians, are the ones calling the shots here on these vaccines and they are being safe and they are being careful. It is going through a process at the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, that is actually more stringent than it was pre-COVID. To get this emergency use authorization, they have to go through more testing, and they have to show efficacy rates above 50 percent, which they normally wouldn't. That is good. We want it to be safe. Even with all that hard work that is being done, all those scientists and researchers working around the clock, there are some Americans who are unwilling and concerned. Part of this is because some politicians, I think, have played politics with this, and I hate that--as if, somehow, in the Trump administration, this wouldn't be trusted. Of course, this is not a political game. This is about saving lives. I am encouraged by the process that we have seen. I hope people will sign up. When I got into the trial, the Gallup poll that is being done periodically to determine whether people are saying whether they are willing to take it or not was at 50 percent--only 50 percent of Americans saying they were comfortable getting the vaccine. That number in last couple of weeks has gone up to 58 percent. It is heading in the right direction. We need people to understand that this is based on science. These vaccines are like the vaccine for smallpox or polio or measles--virtually, wiping out these diseases in this country. My dad had polio as a kid. Now people don't even talk about it. That is because of the vaccine. They work. We have to view it that way. It is not like the flu vaccine, frankly. The flu vaccine is only effective about one-third of the time. These, what they call efficacy rates, meaning how effective it is, have come in at 90, 95 percent and higher. So we will see what the FDA says here in the next couple of weeks. I am encouraged that we are likely to get some approvals and likely to begin being able to provide these vaccines for those on the frontlines, for those in long-care facilities, for our first responders, and then out from there to the entire population. Because these vaccines won't be widely available for 3 or 4 months, we need to act here and act now to provide a bridge to more normal times. That is really how I see it. This is a short-term emergency response to a desperate need we have right now as cases are rising and the economic consequences are being felt in every family in America--more and more pain. My hope is that Congress will make good on the promise we have seen over the last couple of weeks, where Republicans and Democrats, alike, have come together to say we do have a lot of common ground here; we actually agree on most of this stuff. Who wouldn't be for more money for vaccines and distribution? We need that. Who wouldn't be for more money for small businesses? Who wouldn't be for more money for people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own? They are struggling to pay the rent and pay their car payment. That is what this legislation can do. I am excited about that possibility. Meanwhile, in the first week of December, we have lost 13,726 Americans to COVID-19 compared to half that many in the first week of November. In 1 month, we have had a doubling of the number of fatalities. At no point in time during this pandemic have we seen daily mortality rates like this, except in the early days in March and April when New York and New Jersey hospitals were being overrun. We have a real crisis. Of course, this healthcare crisis is having a direct impact on the economy too. Even with these vaccines on the horizon, it is clear we have to do more to help the economy get through this period of time before we are back to more a normal time. We have to help, in the short term, to address the impact this healthcare crisis is having on families, on employment, on businesses, on schools, on nonprofits, and, yes, on State and local governments. As I see it, our job is to provide that bridge so that the economic rebound that we have begun to see can continue. I am concerned that the recovery we have seen, which has been called a K-shaped recovery--you know, you like to see a recovery come in a V-shape, where you have a recession, you lose jobs and economic growth, and then it comes back up the way it went down. It is called a V-shape. This has been more like a ``K.'' For some people, it has been OK. If you are a big-box hardware store or grocery store in America, you are probably doing pretty well right now. If you are a small business, say, a small retail store or sitdown restaurant next to those big boxes, you are not doing OK. You may already be closed down. Your employees may already be unemployed. If not, you are hanging by a thread and hoping and praying that Congress passes legislation to help you. It has been different for different people. If you have a blue-collar job, you can't telework. If you are in the financial services industry, you are probably doing OK, but if you work in a kitchen making 15 bucks an hour, you are probably not. So it is different for different people in different sectors of our economy. I get that. For some, again, they are doing OK; for others, they are really struggling. Poverty, overall, is up because of what is happening, and this is sad to me. And we can see it in our communities. Go to your local food bank, see how many cars are lined up, how many people are waiting for 3, 4, 5, in Ohio, sometimes 6 hours just to get food for their families. Before the pandemic hit, we had very strong economic growth. I think the pro-growth policies that were put in place here in Congress really helped. The tax reform, the tax cuts, the regulatory relief, using our energy--it all was working. We were having a period of growth that was strong, but also it was a very ``opportunity'' economy. People who had been on the sidelines for years were coming back into our economy. A lot of the benefits were being felt by lower and middle-income workers. Let me give you an example. In February of this year, just before the pandemic started, we had 19 straight months of wage growth of over 3 percent. That is fantastic. We have been wanting that for a decade and a half in Ohio. We had flat wages, even not keeping up with inflation. Finally, we were seeing wage growth. That 3 percent was compounding and was really helping people feel like if they worked hard and played by the rules, they could get ahead. Sadly, when the coronavirus hit, that ended. Before the coronavirus, the national poverty rate was the lowest in the history of America. In February, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest rate since westarted tracking this statistic more than 60 years ago. That is the poverty rate. That is incredible. That is what we all want. After the initial wave of layoffs in the spring, Congress passed the bipartisan CARES Act. That was 9 months ago--9 months ago. It included programs like the stimulus checks and expanded unemployment insurance. It actually helped drive the poverty rate down for a while. Since then, this continual economic pain felt particularly by low- and middle-income Americans, combined with the lack of action on our part here in Congress to help them, has meant the poverty rate has actually gone back up since May by a significant amount. It now sits at 11.4 percent. That means that 7 million more Americans have fallen into poverty since the spring--7 million. When you fall into poverty, it is hard to get back out. As long as this economy remains partly shut down--in some of our States, it is largely shut down if you are in the hospitality business or travel business. As long as this happens and we can see more shutdowns in the coming weeks and months, of course, as this crisis continues to worsen, we will see poverty levels rise unless we provide some relief. Along with the rising poverty rate, what is concerning to me is the fact that more and more people are just giving up hope. There is a stat called the labor force participation rate. It is the share of Americans who are over 16 years old, either working or looking for a job. In February, we hit a 5-year high for labor force participation. That is a good thing. In other words, we had more people participating in the workforce than we had in 5 years. Unfortunately, it has gone back down. It was up to 63.4 percent. Now it is down to 61.7 percent. The October number works out to a labor force that has nearly 4 million fewer participants than it did in February. Just people participating in the economy has gone down. Why do we need this package? We have a real problem on our hands. It is a healthcare crisis, but it is also an economic crisis for so many people. Unfortunately, a record number of women and older Americans are also having to leave the workplace due to either a lack of opportunity or the need to stay home with their kids. For a lot of women, not having childcare is a real problem because the schools are closed. This is driving people out of the workforce as well. This is bad news for businesses trying to reopen, but it is also bad news for our long-term economic health. People who can't find a way off the sidelines right now won't be able to help power the eventual economic recovery we all hope for, and they will miss out on the economic recovery that does happen. It is a bad position to be in. We saw with last week's jobs report that hiring is slowing down, meaning that more people may slip out of the labor force. In all, we are still down 10 million jobs in America since February. Some of my colleagues said to me: My town is doing great or my State is doing great or this industry is doing great. I get that. It is a K-shaped recovery. For some people, it is going well. The fact is that 10 million people--10 million people--that is how many jobs we are down since February. A further slowdown in the economy is going to be tough for these long-term unemployed. My concern is some may never reenter the workforce without action here to help businesses start hiring again. Some of the hardest hit industries in our States, like the travel, leisure, hospitality industries, are facing real losses. Our airline industry is expected to cut the equivalent of about 90,000 jobs by the end of this year--90,000 jobs alone in the airline industry. I spoke to the president of American Airlines today. They are big in Ohio. He called. Guess what. He is really eager for us to pass this coronavirus legislation we are talking about. He is really eager because he needs it desperately to hold on to his employees. He doesn't want to furlough any more people, but he doesn't have the business to keep them working. According to a November survey from the American Hotel and Lodging Association, more than 70 percent of hotels have said that they won't be able to stay in business another 6 months without more assistance--70 percent. Almost 80 percent said they had to lay off more people. Our restaurant industry lost jobs in November for the first time since April. It is a worrying sign that while restaurants were starting to pick up, things were getting better, in November, because of the news of the high level of cases and the concern people had about going out in public and also, in some States, because of a government edict saying you can't go--in some places, they even said you can't have outdoor dining anymore, not just indoor dining. Think of what this does to those restaurants, most of which are small businesses, family-owned, and were already stressed. Some of those restaurants have closed their doors. I know some of them are never going to reopen again. It is not just restaurants. It is bowling alleys; it is movie theaters; it is the place you get your hair cut. A lot of them are suffering. A lot of these challenges are going to get worse soon because the number of the programs we put in place in this pandemic to help provide relief for people struggling are going to expire. That is another reason we have to act. At the end of this year--actually, the day before Christmas--we are going to see some of these programs begin to expire. The pandemic unemployment assistance program that helps the self-employed, that helps gig economy workers, people who would not normally be eligible for unemployment to be able to step forward and get unemployment insurance, is going to end at the end of this month. That is something a lot of my constituents in Ohio have been depending on if they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The pandemic emergency employment compensation program that authorizes another 13 weeks of State benefits, helped by the Federal tax dollar, ends at the end of this month. Of course, there is a moratorium on evictions that ends at the end of this month. The bottom line is that the people, State and local governments, the industries, the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit to date by the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 are going to be the ones who are likely to be hurt most by a continued economic slowdown. As I said, these are problems that, right now, can only be fixed by all of us stepping forward. Congress needs to take action and take action now. We have about a week. We have about a week. Fortunately, again, I am pleased to say that the proposal that is in the works on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate is going to help. It has a total price tag of $908 billion, and you have all heard that, probably, if you have been following what has been going on with this continuing negotiation. It helps everybody. It helps individuals; it helps families; it helps small businesses; it helps industries; it helps those who have been the hardest hit--with targeted resources. It is focused. It is targeted. It is not the $3.5 trillion legislation that has been talked about over the last several months. It is targeted. It is focused. Actually, although it is $908 billion, it is really more like $350 billion because it takes back money that was spent in the CARES Act, which was appropriated by this Congress but not used, and repurposes it for these purposes. So I think it is a focused, targeted effort that will really help. Again, what is exciting about it is that, today, there was a proposal made that says we have this bipartisan framework, which is very similar, apparently, and my hope is that the Speaker of the House, the majority leader here in the Senate, the Democratic leader here in the Senate, the Republican leader in the House, and the President of the United States can all figure out how to get together and make this work. This bipartisan proposal that we have been working on here, I think, does provide a good template. By the way, all of those actors I talked about--all of those players--have said good things about the proposal. It has funding in there to extend the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses. It targets those smallbusinesses that need the help the most. It is really more targeted this time. It is targeted relief for some of our hardest hit industries, including our airlines and our mass transit industry. It includes funds to help those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--the unemployment insurance extension that I talked about earlier. As a bridge to normalcy, we need this funding. It provides funds for State, local, and Tribal governments based on their revenue shortfalls or their expenses due to COVID--in other words, needs-based. We are also working on commonsense liability reforms to give businesses, nonprofits, schools, healthcare providers, religious organizations, and others the legal protection they need to reopen with the confidence that they are not going to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits that could put them out of business. That is really important because getting these businesses back up and running is a critical part of getting our economy through these next few months. In my view, these protections are essential. I am hopeful that both sides can now come together and find common ground on liability protections that we can all support. Several of my colleagues are working on a proposal here, right now, in the U.S. Senate. All of this gives us hope that we will have better days around the corner. By the way, this proposal is not what any of us would write. It is not the proposal I would write. It is not the proposal our Presiding Officer, who is here in the Chamber, would write. Personally, I would put more emphasis on tax incentives for hiring. We have some good proposals for that. I would put tax incentives in place to get businesses to reopen safely--one called the healthy workplaces tax credit so they could get compensated for putting up the partitions or for having the PPE and providing safer work environments. I would expand the work opportunity tax credit to help those, again, who are on the sidelines in order to bring them back to work through a credit. I would help with regard to the employee retention credit, which was in the CARES Act, that could pick up some of these companies that aren't picked up by the PPP program, companies that have slightly more employees, let's say, so that they don't otherwise qualify. So there is more I would like to do, but do you know what? This proposal is needed. It is needed so badly that, of course, all of us, regardless of our particular interests or our particular ideas, know it is right, and all of us should get behind it. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good--I would even say the enemy of the necessary. Targeted relief now, I think, is the right approach. Most importantly, all of these significant economic problems I laid out and the healthcare crisis I laid out need to be addressed now. As I said earlier, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the health side of this crisis, and our proposal that I have been talking about also helps us get there because it has more funding for vaccine development and vaccine distribution. I talked today to some experts in that area who know a lot more about it than I do, and they said it is necessary. We actually have to provide more funding to keep the vaccine train moving so that, by March and April, we will have it widely available. Again, my hope is that Americans will step up and be vaccinated. By the way, there is also bipartisan legislation that four of us introduced last week--two Republicans, two Democrats--to provide for a public service campaign, not with politicians talking about the importance, as I am doing tonight, but with the experts talking about why the science says that it is a good idea to get vaccinated--again, just like we do for smallpox or polio or the measles. Will another COVID-19 bill solve every problem we face right now? No, but we could do a lot with this proposal to help the most vulnerable individuals just get by for the next several months rather than slip into poverty, rather than miss out on mortgage payments or miss out on their rent, miss out on their car payments, and other bad outcomes. We can help the most vulnerable businesses keep their lights on and their employees on payroll. Frankly, this is work we should have been doing months ago, but we are here now. Let's get it done. My hope is that we can end this year by recapturing that spirit of bipartisanship that was on display in March of this year when we passed the CARES package here in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. That doesn't happen very often. The CARES Act was not a perfect bill either, but we all recognized it was a bill needed for the moment. I hope we can also recognize that another bill is needed now even if it is not perfect. Let's build on the bipartisan proposal we have put forward, and let's ensure that the people we represent get the targeted economic relief they desperately need in the coming months. Folks, let's not leave for the holidays until we have done that. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7273 | null | 1,812 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk again about the need for Congress to act to pass a COVID-19 bill that helps the people we represent. I am told this is the 20th time I have come to the floor to make this plea, meaning that I haven't been all that convincing, I guess. But the reality is there is hope in the air. There is a bipartisan group that is working on a package. I am part of that group, as is the Presiding Officer. It is bipartisan: about five Democrats, about five Republicans. Maybe more significantly, today the White House apparently made an offer to Speaker Pelosi to reengage in conversation to try to get to a package that meets the needs of everyone. The package that was presented was actually very similar to the package that this bipartisan group has been working on over the past few weeks. So there is hope in the air, and that is good because we need the help, and we need it now. Let's talk for a minute about why we need this help. I would guess that pretty much everybody in this Chamber has seen firsthand the health crisis that we are facing. The number of cases is up. The number of people in intensive care is up. Hospitalizations are up. And, sadly, fatalities have increased. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber have had to fight cases of COVID-19 themselves. Thank God they are all OK. But that is not true with everyone we represent. I would bet that everyone in this Chamber knows somebody and probably multiple people who have had a very tough time or who have even succumbed to this terrible disease. Last week, another friend of mine died because of COVID-19. His name was Mike Crabtree. Mike was a county commissioner in Scioto County, OH--a friend, a standup guy who helped me on a lot of tough issues in Southeast Ohio. He was always there for his community and for me. Today, of course, we offer our prayers to his wife Diane, his family, and to all of his friends in Scioto County. It is personal. In the face of these personal tragedies and the sad reality that in many States we are now experiencing this higher number of cases--in many States it is the highest we have had since the beginning of this pandemic--we do have some promising news on one front, and that is on the vaccine front. It now seems clear that later this month, and then over the next 3 to 4 months, help is on the way in the form of very effective new vaccines being developed by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and other U.S. manufacturers. The unprecedented support that Congress has provided for vaccine development, the Trump administration's innovative approach to cut bureaucratic redtape through what is called Operation Warp Speed, and the commitment and ingenuity of our researchers who have been working around the clock, our scientists, and our manufacturers have combined to put us on a path to having multiple vaccines, at unprecedented speed, with efficacy rates above 90 percent. This is incredible. This is good news. Safe, effective vaccines are expected to be available to frontline healthcare workers, first responders, long-term care facilities, and others just in the next few weeks. This is good news. Within the next few months, we would expect that these vaccines would be more broadly available, and hopefully by March, maybe April, pretty much everybody would be able to find a way to get that vaccine, free, for them and for their family. That has to be our goal here, as quickly as possible, to get safe, effective vaccines. I am concerned--as some of my colleagues know, because I talk about it a lot--that the number of people who say they are willing to get the vaccine is too low. That is one reason I entered one of the trials myself. I am in the Janssen J&J trial. I either got the vaccine or I got a placebo--I don't know--but I did it to be able to go out and talk about it and tell people that these scientists, these experts, the people with the white coats, not the politicians, are the ones calling the shots here on these vaccines and they are being safe and they are being careful. It is going through a process at the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, that is actually more stringent than it was pre-COVID. To get this emergency use authorization, they have to go through more testing, and they have to show efficacy rates above 50 percent, which they normally wouldn't. That is good. We want it to be safe. Even with all that hard work that is being done, all those scientists and researchers working around the clock, there are some Americans who are unwilling and concerned. Part of this is because some politicians, I think, have played politics with this, and I hate that--as if, somehow, in the Trump administration, this wouldn't be trusted. Of course, this is not a political game. This is about saving lives. I am encouraged by the process that we have seen. I hope people will sign up. When I got into the trial, the Gallup poll that is being done periodically to determine whether people are saying whether they are willing to take it or not was at 50 percent--only 50 percent of Americans saying they were comfortable getting the vaccine. That number in last couple of weeks has gone up to 58 percent. It is heading in the right direction. We need people to understand that this is based on science. These vaccines are like the vaccine for smallpox or polio or measles--virtually, wiping out these diseases in this country. My dad had polio as a kid. Now people don't even talk about it. That is because of the vaccine. They work. We have to view it that way. It is not like the flu vaccine, frankly. The flu vaccine is only effective about one-third of the time. These, what they call efficacy rates, meaning how effective it is, have come in at 90, 95 percent and higher. So we will see what the FDA says here in the next couple of weeks. I am encouraged that we are likely to get some approvals and likely to begin being able to provide these vaccines for those on the frontlines, for those in long-care facilities, for our first responders, and then out from there to the entire population. Because these vaccines won't be widely available for 3 or 4 months, we need to act here and act now to provide a bridge to more normal times. That is really how I see it. This is a short-term emergency response to a desperate need we have right now as cases are rising and the economic consequences are being felt in every family in America--more and more pain. My hope is that Congress will make good on the promise we have seen over the last couple of weeks, where Republicans and Democrats, alike, have come together to say we do have a lot of common ground here; we actually agree on most of this stuff. Who wouldn't be for more money for vaccines and distribution? We need that. Who wouldn't be for more money for small businesses? Who wouldn't be for more money for people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own? They are struggling to pay the rent and pay their car payment. That is what this legislation can do. I am excited about that possibility. Meanwhile, in the first week of December, we have lost 13,726 Americans to COVID-19 compared to half that many in the first week of November. In 1 month, we have had a doubling of the number of fatalities. At no point in time during this pandemic have we seen daily mortality rates like this, except in the early days in March and April when New York and New Jersey hospitals were being overrun. We have a real crisis. Of course, this healthcare crisis is having a direct impact on the economy too. Even with these vaccines on the horizon, it is clear we have to do more to help the economy get through this period of time before we are back to more a normal time. We have to help, in the short term, to address the impact this healthcare crisis is having on families, on employment, on businesses, on schools, on nonprofits, and, yes, on State and local governments. As I see it, our job is to provide that bridge so that the economic rebound that we have begun to see can continue. I am concerned that the recovery we have seen, which has been called a K-shaped recovery--you know, you like to see a recovery come in a V-shape, where you have a recession, you lose jobs and economic growth, and then it comes back up the way it went down. It is called a V-shape. This has been more like a ``K.'' For some people, it has been OK. If you are a big-box hardware store or grocery store in America, you are probably doing pretty well right now. If you are a small business, say, a small retail store or sitdown restaurant next to those big boxes, you are not doing OK. You may already be closed down. Your employees may already be unemployed. If not, you are hanging by a thread and hoping and praying that Congress passes legislation to help you. It has been different for different people. If you have a blue-collar job, you can't telework. If you are in the financial services industry, you are probably doing OK, but if you work in a kitchen making 15 bucks an hour, you are probably not. So it is different for different people in different sectors of our economy. I get that. For some, again, they are doing OK; for others, they are really struggling. Poverty, overall, is up because of what is happening, and this is sad to me. And we can see it in our communities. Go to your local food bank, see how many cars are lined up, how many people are waiting for 3, 4, 5, in Ohio, sometimes 6 hours just to get food for their families. Before the pandemic hit, we had very strong economic growth. I think the pro-growth policies that were put in place here in Congress really helped. The tax reform, the tax cuts, the regulatory relief, using our energy--it all was working. We were having a period of growth that was strong, but also it was a very ``opportunity'' economy. People who had been on the sidelines for years were coming back into our economy. A lot of the benefits were being felt by lower and middle-income workers. Let me give you an example. In February of this year, just before the pandemic started, we had 19 straight months of wage growth of over 3 percent. That is fantastic. We have been wanting that for a decade and a half in Ohio. We had flat wages, even not keeping up with inflation. Finally, we were seeing wage growth. That 3 percent was compounding and was really helping people feel like if they worked hard and played by the rules, they could get ahead. Sadly, when the coronavirus hit, that ended. Before the coronavirus, the national poverty rate was the lowest in the history of America. In February, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest rate since westarted tracking this statistic more than 60 years ago. That is the poverty rate. That is incredible. That is what we all want. After the initial wave of layoffs in the spring, Congress passed the bipartisan CARES Act. That was 9 months ago--9 months ago. It included programs like the stimulus checks and expanded unemployment insurance. It actually helped drive the poverty rate down for a while. Since then, this continual economic pain felt particularly by low- and middle-income Americans, combined with the lack of action on our part here in Congress to help them, has meant the poverty rate has actually gone back up since May by a significant amount. It now sits at 11.4 percent. That means that 7 million more Americans have fallen into poverty since the spring--7 million. When you fall into poverty, it is hard to get back out. As long as this economy remains partly shut down--in some of our States, it is largely shut down if you are in the hospitality business or travel business. As long as this happens and we can see more shutdowns in the coming weeks and months, of course, as this crisis continues to worsen, we will see poverty levels rise unless we provide some relief. Along with the rising poverty rate, what is concerning to me is the fact that more and more people are just giving up hope. There is a stat called the labor force participation rate. It is the share of Americans who are over 16 years old, either working or looking for a job. In February, we hit a 5-year high for labor force participation. That is a good thing. In other words, we had more people participating in the workforce than we had in 5 years. Unfortunately, it has gone back down. It was up to 63.4 percent. Now it is down to 61.7 percent. The October number works out to a labor force that has nearly 4 million fewer participants than it did in February. Just people participating in the economy has gone down. Why do we need this package? We have a real problem on our hands. It is a healthcare crisis, but it is also an economic crisis for so many people. Unfortunately, a record number of women and older Americans are also having to leave the workplace due to either a lack of opportunity or the need to stay home with their kids. For a lot of women, not having childcare is a real problem because the schools are closed. This is driving people out of the workforce as well. This is bad news for businesses trying to reopen, but it is also bad news for our long-term economic health. People who can't find a way off the sidelines right now won't be able to help power the eventual economic recovery we all hope for, and they will miss out on the economic recovery that does happen. It is a bad position to be in. We saw with last week's jobs report that hiring is slowing down, meaning that more people may slip out of the labor force. In all, we are still down 10 million jobs in America since February. Some of my colleagues said to me: My town is doing great or my State is doing great or this industry is doing great. I get that. It is a K-shaped recovery. For some people, it is going well. The fact is that 10 million people--10 million people--that is how many jobs we are down since February. A further slowdown in the economy is going to be tough for these long-term unemployed. My concern is some may never reenter the workforce without action here to help businesses start hiring again. Some of the hardest hit industries in our States, like the travel, leisure, hospitality industries, are facing real losses. Our airline industry is expected to cut the equivalent of about 90,000 jobs by the end of this year--90,000 jobs alone in the airline industry. I spoke to the president of American Airlines today. They are big in Ohio. He called. Guess what. He is really eager for us to pass this coronavirus legislation we are talking about. He is really eager because he needs it desperately to hold on to his employees. He doesn't want to furlough any more people, but he doesn't have the business to keep them working. According to a November survey from the American Hotel and Lodging Association, more than 70 percent of hotels have said that they won't be able to stay in business another 6 months without more assistance--70 percent. Almost 80 percent said they had to lay off more people. Our restaurant industry lost jobs in November for the first time since April. It is a worrying sign that while restaurants were starting to pick up, things were getting better, in November, because of the news of the high level of cases and the concern people had about going out in public and also, in some States, because of a government edict saying you can't go--in some places, they even said you can't have outdoor dining anymore, not just indoor dining. Think of what this does to those restaurants, most of which are small businesses, family-owned, and were already stressed. Some of those restaurants have closed their doors. I know some of them are never going to reopen again. It is not just restaurants. It is bowling alleys; it is movie theaters; it is the place you get your hair cut. A lot of them are suffering. A lot of these challenges are going to get worse soon because the number of the programs we put in place in this pandemic to help provide relief for people struggling are going to expire. That is another reason we have to act. At the end of this year--actually, the day before Christmas--we are going to see some of these programs begin to expire. The pandemic unemployment assistance program that helps the self-employed, that helps gig economy workers, people who would not normally be eligible for unemployment to be able to step forward and get unemployment insurance, is going to end at the end of this month. That is something a lot of my constituents in Ohio have been depending on if they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The pandemic emergency employment compensation program that authorizes another 13 weeks of State benefits, helped by the Federal tax dollar, ends at the end of this month. Of course, there is a moratorium on evictions that ends at the end of this month. The bottom line is that the people, State and local governments, the industries, the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit to date by the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 are going to be the ones who are likely to be hurt most by a continued economic slowdown. As I said, these are problems that, right now, can only be fixed by all of us stepping forward. Congress needs to take action and take action now. We have about a week. We have about a week. Fortunately, again, I am pleased to say that the proposal that is in the works on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate is going to help. It has a total price tag of $908 billion, and you have all heard that, probably, if you have been following what has been going on with this continuing negotiation. It helps everybody. It helps individuals; it helps families; it helps small businesses; it helps industries; it helps those who have been the hardest hit--with targeted resources. It is focused. It is targeted. It is not the $3.5 trillion legislation that has been talked about over the last several months. It is targeted. It is focused. Actually, although it is $908 billion, it is really more like $350 billion because it takes back money that was spent in the CARES Act, which was appropriated by this Congress but not used, and repurposes it for these purposes. So I think it is a focused, targeted effort that will really help. Again, what is exciting about it is that, today, there was a proposal made that says we have this bipartisan framework, which is very similar, apparently, and my hope is that the Speaker of the House, the majority leader here in the Senate, the Democratic leader here in the Senate, the Republican leader in the House, and the President of the United States can all figure out how to get together and make this work. This bipartisan proposal that we have been working on here, I think, does provide a good template. By the way, all of those actors I talked about--all of those players--have said good things about the proposal. It has funding in there to extend the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses. It targets those smallbusinesses that need the help the most. It is really more targeted this time. It is targeted relief for some of our hardest hit industries, including our airlines and our mass transit industry. It includes funds to help those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--the unemployment insurance extension that I talked about earlier. As a bridge to normalcy, we need this funding. It provides funds for State, local, and Tribal governments based on their revenue shortfalls or their expenses due to COVID--in other words, needs-based. We are also working on commonsense liability reforms to give businesses, nonprofits, schools, healthcare providers, religious organizations, and others the legal protection they need to reopen with the confidence that they are not going to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits that could put them out of business. That is really important because getting these businesses back up and running is a critical part of getting our economy through these next few months. In my view, these protections are essential. I am hopeful that both sides can now come together and find common ground on liability protections that we can all support. Several of my colleagues are working on a proposal here, right now, in the U.S. Senate. All of this gives us hope that we will have better days around the corner. By the way, this proposal is not what any of us would write. It is not the proposal I would write. It is not the proposal our Presiding Officer, who is here in the Chamber, would write. Personally, I would put more emphasis on tax incentives for hiring. We have some good proposals for that. I would put tax incentives in place to get businesses to reopen safely--one called the healthy workplaces tax credit so they could get compensated for putting up the partitions or for having the PPE and providing safer work environments. I would expand the work opportunity tax credit to help those, again, who are on the sidelines in order to bring them back to work through a credit. I would help with regard to the employee retention credit, which was in the CARES Act, that could pick up some of these companies that aren't picked up by the PPP program, companies that have slightly more employees, let's say, so that they don't otherwise qualify. So there is more I would like to do, but do you know what? This proposal is needed. It is needed so badly that, of course, all of us, regardless of our particular interests or our particular ideas, know it is right, and all of us should get behind it. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good--I would even say the enemy of the necessary. Targeted relief now, I think, is the right approach. Most importantly, all of these significant economic problems I laid out and the healthcare crisis I laid out need to be addressed now. As I said earlier, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the health side of this crisis, and our proposal that I have been talking about also helps us get there because it has more funding for vaccine development and vaccine distribution. I talked today to some experts in that area who know a lot more about it than I do, and they said it is necessary. We actually have to provide more funding to keep the vaccine train moving so that, by March and April, we will have it widely available. Again, my hope is that Americans will step up and be vaccinated. By the way, there is also bipartisan legislation that four of us introduced last week--two Republicans, two Democrats--to provide for a public service campaign, not with politicians talking about the importance, as I am doing tonight, but with the experts talking about why the science says that it is a good idea to get vaccinated--again, just like we do for smallpox or polio or the measles. Will another COVID-19 bill solve every problem we face right now? No, but we could do a lot with this proposal to help the most vulnerable individuals just get by for the next several months rather than slip into poverty, rather than miss out on mortgage payments or miss out on their rent, miss out on their car payments, and other bad outcomes. We can help the most vulnerable businesses keep their lights on and their employees on payroll. Frankly, this is work we should have been doing months ago, but we are here now. Let's get it done. My hope is that we can end this year by recapturing that spirit of bipartisanship that was on display in March of this year when we passed the CARES package here in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. That doesn't happen very often. The CARES Act was not a perfect bill either, but we all recognized it was a bill needed for the moment. I hope we can also recognize that another bill is needed now even if it is not perfect. Let's build on the bipartisan proposal we have put forward, and let's ensure that the people we represent get the targeted economic relief they desperately need in the coming months. Folks, let's not leave for the holidays until we have done that. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7273 | null | 1,813 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk again about the need for Congress to act to pass a COVID-19 bill that helps the people we represent. I am told this is the 20th time I have come to the floor to make this plea, meaning that I haven't been all that convincing, I guess. But the reality is there is hope in the air. There is a bipartisan group that is working on a package. I am part of that group, as is the Presiding Officer. It is bipartisan: about five Democrats, about five Republicans. Maybe more significantly, today the White House apparently made an offer to Speaker Pelosi to reengage in conversation to try to get to a package that meets the needs of everyone. The package that was presented was actually very similar to the package that this bipartisan group has been working on over the past few weeks. So there is hope in the air, and that is good because we need the help, and we need it now. Let's talk for a minute about why we need this help. I would guess that pretty much everybody in this Chamber has seen firsthand the health crisis that we are facing. The number of cases is up. The number of people in intensive care is up. Hospitalizations are up. And, sadly, fatalities have increased. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber have had to fight cases of COVID-19 themselves. Thank God they are all OK. But that is not true with everyone we represent. I would bet that everyone in this Chamber knows somebody and probably multiple people who have had a very tough time or who have even succumbed to this terrible disease. Last week, another friend of mine died because of COVID-19. His name was Mike Crabtree. Mike was a county commissioner in Scioto County, OH--a friend, a standup guy who helped me on a lot of tough issues in Southeast Ohio. He was always there for his community and for me. Today, of course, we offer our prayers to his wife Diane, his family, and to all of his friends in Scioto County. It is personal. In the face of these personal tragedies and the sad reality that in many States we are now experiencing this higher number of cases--in many States it is the highest we have had since the beginning of this pandemic--we do have some promising news on one front, and that is on the vaccine front. It now seems clear that later this month, and then over the next 3 to 4 months, help is on the way in the form of very effective new vaccines being developed by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and other U.S. manufacturers. The unprecedented support that Congress has provided for vaccine development, the Trump administration's innovative approach to cut bureaucratic redtape through what is called Operation Warp Speed, and the commitment and ingenuity of our researchers who have been working around the clock, our scientists, and our manufacturers have combined to put us on a path to having multiple vaccines, at unprecedented speed, with efficacy rates above 90 percent. This is incredible. This is good news. Safe, effective vaccines are expected to be available to frontline healthcare workers, first responders, long-term care facilities, and others just in the next few weeks. This is good news. Within the next few months, we would expect that these vaccines would be more broadly available, and hopefully by March, maybe April, pretty much everybody would be able to find a way to get that vaccine, free, for them and for their family. That has to be our goal here, as quickly as possible, to get safe, effective vaccines. I am concerned--as some of my colleagues know, because I talk about it a lot--that the number of people who say they are willing to get the vaccine is too low. That is one reason I entered one of the trials myself. I am in the Janssen J&J trial. I either got the vaccine or I got a placebo--I don't know--but I did it to be able to go out and talk about it and tell people that these scientists, these experts, the people with the white coats, not the politicians, are the ones calling the shots here on these vaccines and they are being safe and they are being careful. It is going through a process at the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, that is actually more stringent than it was pre-COVID. To get this emergency use authorization, they have to go through more testing, and they have to show efficacy rates above 50 percent, which they normally wouldn't. That is good. We want it to be safe. Even with all that hard work that is being done, all those scientists and researchers working around the clock, there are some Americans who are unwilling and concerned. Part of this is because some politicians, I think, have played politics with this, and I hate that--as if, somehow, in the Trump administration, this wouldn't be trusted. Of course, this is not a political game. This is about saving lives. I am encouraged by the process that we have seen. I hope people will sign up. When I got into the trial, the Gallup poll that is being done periodically to determine whether people are saying whether they are willing to take it or not was at 50 percent--only 50 percent of Americans saying they were comfortable getting the vaccine. That number in last couple of weeks has gone up to 58 percent. It is heading in the right direction. We need people to understand that this is based on science. These vaccines are like the vaccine for smallpox or polio or measles--virtually, wiping out these diseases in this country. My dad had polio as a kid. Now people don't even talk about it. That is because of the vaccine. They work. We have to view it that way. It is not like the flu vaccine, frankly. The flu vaccine is only effective about one-third of the time. These, what they call efficacy rates, meaning how effective it is, have come in at 90, 95 percent and higher. So we will see what the FDA says here in the next couple of weeks. I am encouraged that we are likely to get some approvals and likely to begin being able to provide these vaccines for those on the frontlines, for those in long-care facilities, for our first responders, and then out from there to the entire population. Because these vaccines won't be widely available for 3 or 4 months, we need to act here and act now to provide a bridge to more normal times. That is really how I see it. This is a short-term emergency response to a desperate need we have right now as cases are rising and the economic consequences are being felt in every family in America--more and more pain. My hope is that Congress will make good on the promise we have seen over the last couple of weeks, where Republicans and Democrats, alike, have come together to say we do have a lot of common ground here; we actually agree on most of this stuff. Who wouldn't be for more money for vaccines and distribution? We need that. Who wouldn't be for more money for small businesses? Who wouldn't be for more money for people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own? They are struggling to pay the rent and pay their car payment. That is what this legislation can do. I am excited about that possibility. Meanwhile, in the first week of December, we have lost 13,726 Americans to COVID-19 compared to half that many in the first week of November. In 1 month, we have had a doubling of the number of fatalities. At no point in time during this pandemic have we seen daily mortality rates like this, except in the early days in March and April when New York and New Jersey hospitals were being overrun. We have a real crisis. Of course, this healthcare crisis is having a direct impact on the economy too. Even with these vaccines on the horizon, it is clear we have to do more to help the economy get through this period of time before we are back to more a normal time. We have to help, in the short term, to address the impact this healthcare crisis is having on families, on employment, on businesses, on schools, on nonprofits, and, yes, on State and local governments. As I see it, our job is to provide that bridge so that the economic rebound that we have begun to see can continue. I am concerned that the recovery we have seen, which has been called a K-shaped recovery--you know, you like to see a recovery come in a V-shape, where you have a recession, you lose jobs and economic growth, and then it comes back up the way it went down. It is called a V-shape. This has been more like a ``K.'' For some people, it has been OK. If you are a big-box hardware store or grocery store in America, you are probably doing pretty well right now. If you are a small business, say, a small retail store or sitdown restaurant next to those big boxes, you are not doing OK. You may already be closed down. Your employees may already be unemployed. If not, you are hanging by a thread and hoping and praying that Congress passes legislation to help you. It has been different for different people. If you have a blue-collar job, you can't telework. If you are in the financial services industry, you are probably doing OK, but if you work in a kitchen making 15 bucks an hour, you are probably not. So it is different for different people in different sectors of our economy. I get that. For some, again, they are doing OK; for others, they are really struggling. Poverty, overall, is up because of what is happening, and this is sad to me. And we can see it in our communities. Go to your local food bank, see how many cars are lined up, how many people are waiting for 3, 4, 5, in Ohio, sometimes 6 hours just to get food for their families. Before the pandemic hit, we had very strong economic growth. I think the pro-growth policies that were put in place here in Congress really helped. The tax reform, the tax cuts, the regulatory relief, using our energy--it all was working. We were having a period of growth that was strong, but also it was a very ``opportunity'' economy. People who had been on the sidelines for years were coming back into our economy. A lot of the benefits were being felt by lower and middle-income workers. Let me give you an example. In February of this year, just before the pandemic started, we had 19 straight months of wage growth of over 3 percent. That is fantastic. We have been wanting that for a decade and a half in Ohio. We had flat wages, even not keeping up with inflation. Finally, we were seeing wage growth. That 3 percent was compounding and was really helping people feel like if they worked hard and played by the rules, they could get ahead. Sadly, when the coronavirus hit, that ended. Before the coronavirus, the national poverty rate was the lowest in the history of America. In February, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest rate since westarted tracking this statistic more than 60 years ago. That is the poverty rate. That is incredible. That is what we all want. After the initial wave of layoffs in the spring, Congress passed the bipartisan CARES Act. That was 9 months ago--9 months ago. It included programs like the stimulus checks and expanded unemployment insurance. It actually helped drive the poverty rate down for a while. Since then, this continual economic pain felt particularly by low- and middle-income Americans, combined with the lack of action on our part here in Congress to help them, has meant the poverty rate has actually gone back up since May by a significant amount. It now sits at 11.4 percent. That means that 7 million more Americans have fallen into poverty since the spring--7 million. When you fall into poverty, it is hard to get back out. As long as this economy remains partly shut down--in some of our States, it is largely shut down if you are in the hospitality business or travel business. As long as this happens and we can see more shutdowns in the coming weeks and months, of course, as this crisis continues to worsen, we will see poverty levels rise unless we provide some relief. Along with the rising poverty rate, what is concerning to me is the fact that more and more people are just giving up hope. There is a stat called the labor force participation rate. It is the share of Americans who are over 16 years old, either working or looking for a job. In February, we hit a 5-year high for labor force participation. That is a good thing. In other words, we had more people participating in the workforce than we had in 5 years. Unfortunately, it has gone back down. It was up to 63.4 percent. Now it is down to 61.7 percent. The October number works out to a labor force that has nearly 4 million fewer participants than it did in February. Just people participating in the economy has gone down. Why do we need this package? We have a real problem on our hands. It is a healthcare crisis, but it is also an economic crisis for so many people. Unfortunately, a record number of women and older Americans are also having to leave the workplace due to either a lack of opportunity or the need to stay home with their kids. For a lot of women, not having childcare is a real problem because the schools are closed. This is driving people out of the workforce as well. This is bad news for businesses trying to reopen, but it is also bad news for our long-term economic health. People who can't find a way off the sidelines right now won't be able to help power the eventual economic recovery we all hope for, and they will miss out on the economic recovery that does happen. It is a bad position to be in. We saw with last week's jobs report that hiring is slowing down, meaning that more people may slip out of the labor force. In all, we are still down 10 million jobs in America since February. Some of my colleagues said to me: My town is doing great or my State is doing great or this industry is doing great. I get that. It is a K-shaped recovery. For some people, it is going well. The fact is that 10 million people--10 million people--that is how many jobs we are down since February. A further slowdown in the economy is going to be tough for these long-term unemployed. My concern is some may never reenter the workforce without action here to help businesses start hiring again. Some of the hardest hit industries in our States, like the travel, leisure, hospitality industries, are facing real losses. Our airline industry is expected to cut the equivalent of about 90,000 jobs by the end of this year--90,000 jobs alone in the airline industry. I spoke to the president of American Airlines today. They are big in Ohio. He called. Guess what. He is really eager for us to pass this coronavirus legislation we are talking about. He is really eager because he needs it desperately to hold on to his employees. He doesn't want to furlough any more people, but he doesn't have the business to keep them working. According to a November survey from the American Hotel and Lodging Association, more than 70 percent of hotels have said that they won't be able to stay in business another 6 months without more assistance--70 percent. Almost 80 percent said they had to lay off more people. Our restaurant industry lost jobs in November for the first time since April. It is a worrying sign that while restaurants were starting to pick up, things were getting better, in November, because of the news of the high level of cases and the concern people had about going out in public and also, in some States, because of a government edict saying you can't go--in some places, they even said you can't have outdoor dining anymore, not just indoor dining. Think of what this does to those restaurants, most of which are small businesses, family-owned, and were already stressed. Some of those restaurants have closed their doors. I know some of them are never going to reopen again. It is not just restaurants. It is bowling alleys; it is movie theaters; it is the place you get your hair cut. A lot of them are suffering. A lot of these challenges are going to get worse soon because the number of the programs we put in place in this pandemic to help provide relief for people struggling are going to expire. That is another reason we have to act. At the end of this year--actually, the day before Christmas--we are going to see some of these programs begin to expire. The pandemic unemployment assistance program that helps the self-employed, that helps gig economy workers, people who would not normally be eligible for unemployment to be able to step forward and get unemployment insurance, is going to end at the end of this month. That is something a lot of my constituents in Ohio have been depending on if they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The pandemic emergency employment compensation program that authorizes another 13 weeks of State benefits, helped by the Federal tax dollar, ends at the end of this month. Of course, there is a moratorium on evictions that ends at the end of this month. The bottom line is that the people, State and local governments, the industries, the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit to date by the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 are going to be the ones who are likely to be hurt most by a continued economic slowdown. As I said, these are problems that, right now, can only be fixed by all of us stepping forward. Congress needs to take action and take action now. We have about a week. We have about a week. Fortunately, again, I am pleased to say that the proposal that is in the works on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate is going to help. It has a total price tag of $908 billion, and you have all heard that, probably, if you have been following what has been going on with this continuing negotiation. It helps everybody. It helps individuals; it helps families; it helps small businesses; it helps industries; it helps those who have been the hardest hit--with targeted resources. It is focused. It is targeted. It is not the $3.5 trillion legislation that has been talked about over the last several months. It is targeted. It is focused. Actually, although it is $908 billion, it is really more like $350 billion because it takes back money that was spent in the CARES Act, which was appropriated by this Congress but not used, and repurposes it for these purposes. So I think it is a focused, targeted effort that will really help. Again, what is exciting about it is that, today, there was a proposal made that says we have this bipartisan framework, which is very similar, apparently, and my hope is that the Speaker of the House, the majority leader here in the Senate, the Democratic leader here in the Senate, the Republican leader in the House, and the President of the United States can all figure out how to get together and make this work. This bipartisan proposal that we have been working on here, I think, does provide a good template. By the way, all of those actors I talked about--all of those players--have said good things about the proposal. It has funding in there to extend the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses. It targets those smallbusinesses that need the help the most. It is really more targeted this time. It is targeted relief for some of our hardest hit industries, including our airlines and our mass transit industry. It includes funds to help those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--the unemployment insurance extension that I talked about earlier. As a bridge to normalcy, we need this funding. It provides funds for State, local, and Tribal governments based on their revenue shortfalls or their expenses due to COVID--in other words, needs-based. We are also working on commonsense liability reforms to give businesses, nonprofits, schools, healthcare providers, religious organizations, and others the legal protection they need to reopen with the confidence that they are not going to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits that could put them out of business. That is really important because getting these businesses back up and running is a critical part of getting our economy through these next few months. In my view, these protections are essential. I am hopeful that both sides can now come together and find common ground on liability protections that we can all support. Several of my colleagues are working on a proposal here, right now, in the U.S. Senate. All of this gives us hope that we will have better days around the corner. By the way, this proposal is not what any of us would write. It is not the proposal I would write. It is not the proposal our Presiding Officer, who is here in the Chamber, would write. Personally, I would put more emphasis on tax incentives for hiring. We have some good proposals for that. I would put tax incentives in place to get businesses to reopen safely--one called the healthy workplaces tax credit so they could get compensated for putting up the partitions or for having the PPE and providing safer work environments. I would expand the work opportunity tax credit to help those, again, who are on the sidelines in order to bring them back to work through a credit. I would help with regard to the employee retention credit, which was in the CARES Act, that could pick up some of these companies that aren't picked up by the PPP program, companies that have slightly more employees, let's say, so that they don't otherwise qualify. So there is more I would like to do, but do you know what? This proposal is needed. It is needed so badly that, of course, all of us, regardless of our particular interests or our particular ideas, know it is right, and all of us should get behind it. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good--I would even say the enemy of the necessary. Targeted relief now, I think, is the right approach. Most importantly, all of these significant economic problems I laid out and the healthcare crisis I laid out need to be addressed now. As I said earlier, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the health side of this crisis, and our proposal that I have been talking about also helps us get there because it has more funding for vaccine development and vaccine distribution. I talked today to some experts in that area who know a lot more about it than I do, and they said it is necessary. We actually have to provide more funding to keep the vaccine train moving so that, by March and April, we will have it widely available. Again, my hope is that Americans will step up and be vaccinated. By the way, there is also bipartisan legislation that four of us introduced last week--two Republicans, two Democrats--to provide for a public service campaign, not with politicians talking about the importance, as I am doing tonight, but with the experts talking about why the science says that it is a good idea to get vaccinated--again, just like we do for smallpox or polio or the measles. Will another COVID-19 bill solve every problem we face right now? No, but we could do a lot with this proposal to help the most vulnerable individuals just get by for the next several months rather than slip into poverty, rather than miss out on mortgage payments or miss out on their rent, miss out on their car payments, and other bad outcomes. We can help the most vulnerable businesses keep their lights on and their employees on payroll. Frankly, this is work we should have been doing months ago, but we are here now. Let's get it done. My hope is that we can end this year by recapturing that spirit of bipartisanship that was on display in March of this year when we passed the CARES package here in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. That doesn't happen very often. The CARES Act was not a perfect bill either, but we all recognized it was a bill needed for the moment. I hope we can also recognize that another bill is needed now even if it is not perfect. Let's build on the bipartisan proposal we have put forward, and let's ensure that the people we represent get the targeted economic relief they desperately need in the coming months. Folks, let's not leave for the holidays until we have done that. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7273 | null | 1,814 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk again about the need for Congress to act to pass a COVID-19 bill that helps the people we represent. I am told this is the 20th time I have come to the floor to make this plea, meaning that I haven't been all that convincing, I guess. But the reality is there is hope in the air. There is a bipartisan group that is working on a package. I am part of that group, as is the Presiding Officer. It is bipartisan: about five Democrats, about five Republicans. Maybe more significantly, today the White House apparently made an offer to Speaker Pelosi to reengage in conversation to try to get to a package that meets the needs of everyone. The package that was presented was actually very similar to the package that this bipartisan group has been working on over the past few weeks. So there is hope in the air, and that is good because we need the help, and we need it now. Let's talk for a minute about why we need this help. I would guess that pretty much everybody in this Chamber has seen firsthand the health crisis that we are facing. The number of cases is up. The number of people in intensive care is up. Hospitalizations are up. And, sadly, fatalities have increased. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber have had to fight cases of COVID-19 themselves. Thank God they are all OK. But that is not true with everyone we represent. I would bet that everyone in this Chamber knows somebody and probably multiple people who have had a very tough time or who have even succumbed to this terrible disease. Last week, another friend of mine died because of COVID-19. His name was Mike Crabtree. Mike was a county commissioner in Scioto County, OH--a friend, a standup guy who helped me on a lot of tough issues in Southeast Ohio. He was always there for his community and for me. Today, of course, we offer our prayers to his wife Diane, his family, and to all of his friends in Scioto County. It is personal. In the face of these personal tragedies and the sad reality that in many States we are now experiencing this higher number of cases--in many States it is the highest we have had since the beginning of this pandemic--we do have some promising news on one front, and that is on the vaccine front. It now seems clear that later this month, and then over the next 3 to 4 months, help is on the way in the form of very effective new vaccines being developed by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and other U.S. manufacturers. The unprecedented support that Congress has provided for vaccine development, the Trump administration's innovative approach to cut bureaucratic redtape through what is called Operation Warp Speed, and the commitment and ingenuity of our researchers who have been working around the clock, our scientists, and our manufacturers have combined to put us on a path to having multiple vaccines, at unprecedented speed, with efficacy rates above 90 percent. This is incredible. This is good news. Safe, effective vaccines are expected to be available to frontline healthcare workers, first responders, long-term care facilities, and others just in the next few weeks. This is good news. Within the next few months, we would expect that these vaccines would be more broadly available, and hopefully by March, maybe April, pretty much everybody would be able to find a way to get that vaccine, free, for them and for their family. That has to be our goal here, as quickly as possible, to get safe, effective vaccines. I am concerned--as some of my colleagues know, because I talk about it a lot--that the number of people who say they are willing to get the vaccine is too low. That is one reason I entered one of the trials myself. I am in the Janssen J&J trial. I either got the vaccine or I got a placebo--I don't know--but I did it to be able to go out and talk about it and tell people that these scientists, these experts, the people with the white coats, not the politicians, are the ones calling the shots here on these vaccines and they are being safe and they are being careful. It is going through a process at the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, that is actually more stringent than it was pre-COVID. To get this emergency use authorization, they have to go through more testing, and they have to show efficacy rates above 50 percent, which they normally wouldn't. That is good. We want it to be safe. Even with all that hard work that is being done, all those scientists and researchers working around the clock, there are some Americans who are unwilling and concerned. Part of this is because some politicians, I think, have played politics with this, and I hate that--as if, somehow, in the Trump administration, this wouldn't be trusted. Of course, this is not a political game. This is about saving lives. I am encouraged by the process that we have seen. I hope people will sign up. When I got into the trial, the Gallup poll that is being done periodically to determine whether people are saying whether they are willing to take it or not was at 50 percent--only 50 percent of Americans saying they were comfortable getting the vaccine. That number in last couple of weeks has gone up to 58 percent. It is heading in the right direction. We need people to understand that this is based on science. These vaccines are like the vaccine for smallpox or polio or measles--virtually, wiping out these diseases in this country. My dad had polio as a kid. Now people don't even talk about it. That is because of the vaccine. They work. We have to view it that way. It is not like the flu vaccine, frankly. The flu vaccine is only effective about one-third of the time. These, what they call efficacy rates, meaning how effective it is, have come in at 90, 95 percent and higher. So we will see what the FDA says here in the next couple of weeks. I am encouraged that we are likely to get some approvals and likely to begin being able to provide these vaccines for those on the frontlines, for those in long-care facilities, for our first responders, and then out from there to the entire population. Because these vaccines won't be widely available for 3 or 4 months, we need to act here and act now to provide a bridge to more normal times. That is really how I see it. This is a short-term emergency response to a desperate need we have right now as cases are rising and the economic consequences are being felt in every family in America--more and more pain. My hope is that Congress will make good on the promise we have seen over the last couple of weeks, where Republicans and Democrats, alike, have come together to say we do have a lot of common ground here; we actually agree on most of this stuff. Who wouldn't be for more money for vaccines and distribution? We need that. Who wouldn't be for more money for small businesses? Who wouldn't be for more money for people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own? They are struggling to pay the rent and pay their car payment. That is what this legislation can do. I am excited about that possibility. Meanwhile, in the first week of December, we have lost 13,726 Americans to COVID-19 compared to half that many in the first week of November. In 1 month, we have had a doubling of the number of fatalities. At no point in time during this pandemic have we seen daily mortality rates like this, except in the early days in March and April when New York and New Jersey hospitals were being overrun. We have a real crisis. Of course, this healthcare crisis is having a direct impact on the economy too. Even with these vaccines on the horizon, it is clear we have to do more to help the economy get through this period of time before we are back to more a normal time. We have to help, in the short term, to address the impact this healthcare crisis is having on families, on employment, on businesses, on schools, on nonprofits, and, yes, on State and local governments. As I see it, our job is to provide that bridge so that the economic rebound that we have begun to see can continue. I am concerned that the recovery we have seen, which has been called a K-shaped recovery--you know, you like to see a recovery come in a V-shape, where you have a recession, you lose jobs and economic growth, and then it comes back up the way it went down. It is called a V-shape. This has been more like a ``K.'' For some people, it has been OK. If you are a big-box hardware store or grocery store in America, you are probably doing pretty well right now. If you are a small business, say, a small retail store or sitdown restaurant next to those big boxes, you are not doing OK. You may already be closed down. Your employees may already be unemployed. If not, you are hanging by a thread and hoping and praying that Congress passes legislation to help you. It has been different for different people. If you have a blue-collar job, you can't telework. If you are in the financial services industry, you are probably doing OK, but if you work in a kitchen making 15 bucks an hour, you are probably not. So it is different for different people in different sectors of our economy. I get that. For some, again, they are doing OK; for others, they are really struggling. Poverty, overall, is up because of what is happening, and this is sad to me. And we can see it in our communities. Go to your local food bank, see how many cars are lined up, how many people are waiting for 3, 4, 5, in Ohio, sometimes 6 hours just to get food for their families. Before the pandemic hit, we had very strong economic growth. I think the pro-growth policies that were put in place here in Congress really helped. The tax reform, the tax cuts, the regulatory relief, using our energy--it all was working. We were having a period of growth that was strong, but also it was a very ``opportunity'' economy. People who had been on the sidelines for years were coming back into our economy. A lot of the benefits were being felt by lower and middle-income workers. Let me give you an example. In February of this year, just before the pandemic started, we had 19 straight months of wage growth of over 3 percent. That is fantastic. We have been wanting that for a decade and a half in Ohio. We had flat wages, even not keeping up with inflation. Finally, we were seeing wage growth. That 3 percent was compounding and was really helping people feel like if they worked hard and played by the rules, they could get ahead. Sadly, when the coronavirus hit, that ended. Before the coronavirus, the national poverty rate was the lowest in the history of America. In February, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest rate since westarted tracking this statistic more than 60 years ago. That is the poverty rate. That is incredible. That is what we all want. After the initial wave of layoffs in the spring, Congress passed the bipartisan CARES Act. That was 9 months ago--9 months ago. It included programs like the stimulus checks and expanded unemployment insurance. It actually helped drive the poverty rate down for a while. Since then, this continual economic pain felt particularly by low- and middle-income Americans, combined with the lack of action on our part here in Congress to help them, has meant the poverty rate has actually gone back up since May by a significant amount. It now sits at 11.4 percent. That means that 7 million more Americans have fallen into poverty since the spring--7 million. When you fall into poverty, it is hard to get back out. As long as this economy remains partly shut down--in some of our States, it is largely shut down if you are in the hospitality business or travel business. As long as this happens and we can see more shutdowns in the coming weeks and months, of course, as this crisis continues to worsen, we will see poverty levels rise unless we provide some relief. Along with the rising poverty rate, what is concerning to me is the fact that more and more people are just giving up hope. There is a stat called the labor force participation rate. It is the share of Americans who are over 16 years old, either working or looking for a job. In February, we hit a 5-year high for labor force participation. That is a good thing. In other words, we had more people participating in the workforce than we had in 5 years. Unfortunately, it has gone back down. It was up to 63.4 percent. Now it is down to 61.7 percent. The October number works out to a labor force that has nearly 4 million fewer participants than it did in February. Just people participating in the economy has gone down. Why do we need this package? We have a real problem on our hands. It is a healthcare crisis, but it is also an economic crisis for so many people. Unfortunately, a record number of women and older Americans are also having to leave the workplace due to either a lack of opportunity or the need to stay home with their kids. For a lot of women, not having childcare is a real problem because the schools are closed. This is driving people out of the workforce as well. This is bad news for businesses trying to reopen, but it is also bad news for our long-term economic health. People who can't find a way off the sidelines right now won't be able to help power the eventual economic recovery we all hope for, and they will miss out on the economic recovery that does happen. It is a bad position to be in. We saw with last week's jobs report that hiring is slowing down, meaning that more people may slip out of the labor force. In all, we are still down 10 million jobs in America since February. Some of my colleagues said to me: My town is doing great or my State is doing great or this industry is doing great. I get that. It is a K-shaped recovery. For some people, it is going well. The fact is that 10 million people--10 million people--that is how many jobs we are down since February. A further slowdown in the economy is going to be tough for these long-term unemployed. My concern is some may never reenter the workforce without action here to help businesses start hiring again. Some of the hardest hit industries in our States, like the travel, leisure, hospitality industries, are facing real losses. Our airline industry is expected to cut the equivalent of about 90,000 jobs by the end of this year--90,000 jobs alone in the airline industry. I spoke to the president of American Airlines today. They are big in Ohio. He called. Guess what. He is really eager for us to pass this coronavirus legislation we are talking about. He is really eager because he needs it desperately to hold on to his employees. He doesn't want to furlough any more people, but he doesn't have the business to keep them working. According to a November survey from the American Hotel and Lodging Association, more than 70 percent of hotels have said that they won't be able to stay in business another 6 months without more assistance--70 percent. Almost 80 percent said they had to lay off more people. Our restaurant industry lost jobs in November for the first time since April. It is a worrying sign that while restaurants were starting to pick up, things were getting better, in November, because of the news of the high level of cases and the concern people had about going out in public and also, in some States, because of a government edict saying you can't go--in some places, they even said you can't have outdoor dining anymore, not just indoor dining. Think of what this does to those restaurants, most of which are small businesses, family-owned, and were already stressed. Some of those restaurants have closed their doors. I know some of them are never going to reopen again. It is not just restaurants. It is bowling alleys; it is movie theaters; it is the place you get your hair cut. A lot of them are suffering. A lot of these challenges are going to get worse soon because the number of the programs we put in place in this pandemic to help provide relief for people struggling are going to expire. That is another reason we have to act. At the end of this year--actually, the day before Christmas--we are going to see some of these programs begin to expire. The pandemic unemployment assistance program that helps the self-employed, that helps gig economy workers, people who would not normally be eligible for unemployment to be able to step forward and get unemployment insurance, is going to end at the end of this month. That is something a lot of my constituents in Ohio have been depending on if they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The pandemic emergency employment compensation program that authorizes another 13 weeks of State benefits, helped by the Federal tax dollar, ends at the end of this month. Of course, there is a moratorium on evictions that ends at the end of this month. The bottom line is that the people, State and local governments, the industries, the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit to date by the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 are going to be the ones who are likely to be hurt most by a continued economic slowdown. As I said, these are problems that, right now, can only be fixed by all of us stepping forward. Congress needs to take action and take action now. We have about a week. We have about a week. Fortunately, again, I am pleased to say that the proposal that is in the works on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate is going to help. It has a total price tag of $908 billion, and you have all heard that, probably, if you have been following what has been going on with this continuing negotiation. It helps everybody. It helps individuals; it helps families; it helps small businesses; it helps industries; it helps those who have been the hardest hit--with targeted resources. It is focused. It is targeted. It is not the $3.5 trillion legislation that has been talked about over the last several months. It is targeted. It is focused. Actually, although it is $908 billion, it is really more like $350 billion because it takes back money that was spent in the CARES Act, which was appropriated by this Congress but not used, and repurposes it for these purposes. So I think it is a focused, targeted effort that will really help. Again, what is exciting about it is that, today, there was a proposal made that says we have this bipartisan framework, which is very similar, apparently, and my hope is that the Speaker of the House, the majority leader here in the Senate, the Democratic leader here in the Senate, the Republican leader in the House, and the President of the United States can all figure out how to get together and make this work. This bipartisan proposal that we have been working on here, I think, does provide a good template. By the way, all of those actors I talked about--all of those players--have said good things about the proposal. It has funding in there to extend the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses. It targets those smallbusinesses that need the help the most. It is really more targeted this time. It is targeted relief for some of our hardest hit industries, including our airlines and our mass transit industry. It includes funds to help those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--the unemployment insurance extension that I talked about earlier. As a bridge to normalcy, we need this funding. It provides funds for State, local, and Tribal governments based on their revenue shortfalls or their expenses due to COVID--in other words, needs-based. We are also working on commonsense liability reforms to give businesses, nonprofits, schools, healthcare providers, religious organizations, and others the legal protection they need to reopen with the confidence that they are not going to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits that could put them out of business. That is really important because getting these businesses back up and running is a critical part of getting our economy through these next few months. In my view, these protections are essential. I am hopeful that both sides can now come together and find common ground on liability protections that we can all support. Several of my colleagues are working on a proposal here, right now, in the U.S. Senate. All of this gives us hope that we will have better days around the corner. By the way, this proposal is not what any of us would write. It is not the proposal I would write. It is not the proposal our Presiding Officer, who is here in the Chamber, would write. Personally, I would put more emphasis on tax incentives for hiring. We have some good proposals for that. I would put tax incentives in place to get businesses to reopen safely--one called the healthy workplaces tax credit so they could get compensated for putting up the partitions or for having the PPE and providing safer work environments. I would expand the work opportunity tax credit to help those, again, who are on the sidelines in order to bring them back to work through a credit. I would help with regard to the employee retention credit, which was in the CARES Act, that could pick up some of these companies that aren't picked up by the PPP program, companies that have slightly more employees, let's say, so that they don't otherwise qualify. So there is more I would like to do, but do you know what? This proposal is needed. It is needed so badly that, of course, all of us, regardless of our particular interests or our particular ideas, know it is right, and all of us should get behind it. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good--I would even say the enemy of the necessary. Targeted relief now, I think, is the right approach. Most importantly, all of these significant economic problems I laid out and the healthcare crisis I laid out need to be addressed now. As I said earlier, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the health side of this crisis, and our proposal that I have been talking about also helps us get there because it has more funding for vaccine development and vaccine distribution. I talked today to some experts in that area who know a lot more about it than I do, and they said it is necessary. We actually have to provide more funding to keep the vaccine train moving so that, by March and April, we will have it widely available. Again, my hope is that Americans will step up and be vaccinated. By the way, there is also bipartisan legislation that four of us introduced last week--two Republicans, two Democrats--to provide for a public service campaign, not with politicians talking about the importance, as I am doing tonight, but with the experts talking about why the science says that it is a good idea to get vaccinated--again, just like we do for smallpox or polio or the measles. Will another COVID-19 bill solve every problem we face right now? No, but we could do a lot with this proposal to help the most vulnerable individuals just get by for the next several months rather than slip into poverty, rather than miss out on mortgage payments or miss out on their rent, miss out on their car payments, and other bad outcomes. We can help the most vulnerable businesses keep their lights on and their employees on payroll. Frankly, this is work we should have been doing months ago, but we are here now. Let's get it done. My hope is that we can end this year by recapturing that spirit of bipartisanship that was on display in March of this year when we passed the CARES package here in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. That doesn't happen very often. The CARES Act was not a perfect bill either, but we all recognized it was a bill needed for the moment. I hope we can also recognize that another bill is needed now even if it is not perfect. Let's build on the bipartisan proposal we have put forward, and let's ensure that the people we represent get the targeted economic relief they desperately need in the coming months. Folks, let's not leave for the holidays until we have done that. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7273 | null | 1,815 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk again about the need for Congress to act to pass a COVID-19 bill that helps the people we represent. I am told this is the 20th time I have come to the floor to make this plea, meaning that I haven't been all that convincing, I guess. But the reality is there is hope in the air. There is a bipartisan group that is working on a package. I am part of that group, as is the Presiding Officer. It is bipartisan: about five Democrats, about five Republicans. Maybe more significantly, today the White House apparently made an offer to Speaker Pelosi to reengage in conversation to try to get to a package that meets the needs of everyone. The package that was presented was actually very similar to the package that this bipartisan group has been working on over the past few weeks. So there is hope in the air, and that is good because we need the help, and we need it now. Let's talk for a minute about why we need this help. I would guess that pretty much everybody in this Chamber has seen firsthand the health crisis that we are facing. The number of cases is up. The number of people in intensive care is up. Hospitalizations are up. And, sadly, fatalities have increased. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber have had to fight cases of COVID-19 themselves. Thank God they are all OK. But that is not true with everyone we represent. I would bet that everyone in this Chamber knows somebody and probably multiple people who have had a very tough time or who have even succumbed to this terrible disease. Last week, another friend of mine died because of COVID-19. His name was Mike Crabtree. Mike was a county commissioner in Scioto County, OH--a friend, a standup guy who helped me on a lot of tough issues in Southeast Ohio. He was always there for his community and for me. Today, of course, we offer our prayers to his wife Diane, his family, and to all of his friends in Scioto County. It is personal. In the face of these personal tragedies and the sad reality that in many States we are now experiencing this higher number of cases--in many States it is the highest we have had since the beginning of this pandemic--we do have some promising news on one front, and that is on the vaccine front. It now seems clear that later this month, and then over the next 3 to 4 months, help is on the way in the form of very effective new vaccines being developed by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and other U.S. manufacturers. The unprecedented support that Congress has provided for vaccine development, the Trump administration's innovative approach to cut bureaucratic redtape through what is called Operation Warp Speed, and the commitment and ingenuity of our researchers who have been working around the clock, our scientists, and our manufacturers have combined to put us on a path to having multiple vaccines, at unprecedented speed, with efficacy rates above 90 percent. This is incredible. This is good news. Safe, effective vaccines are expected to be available to frontline healthcare workers, first responders, long-term care facilities, and others just in the next few weeks. This is good news. Within the next few months, we would expect that these vaccines would be more broadly available, and hopefully by March, maybe April, pretty much everybody would be able to find a way to get that vaccine, free, for them and for their family. That has to be our goal here, as quickly as possible, to get safe, effective vaccines. I am concerned--as some of my colleagues know, because I talk about it a lot--that the number of people who say they are willing to get the vaccine is too low. That is one reason I entered one of the trials myself. I am in the Janssen J&J trial. I either got the vaccine or I got a placebo--I don't know--but I did it to be able to go out and talk about it and tell people that these scientists, these experts, the people with the white coats, not the politicians, are the ones calling the shots here on these vaccines and they are being safe and they are being careful. It is going through a process at the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, that is actually more stringent than it was pre-COVID. To get this emergency use authorization, they have to go through more testing, and they have to show efficacy rates above 50 percent, which they normally wouldn't. That is good. We want it to be safe. Even with all that hard work that is being done, all those scientists and researchers working around the clock, there are some Americans who are unwilling and concerned. Part of this is because some politicians, I think, have played politics with this, and I hate that--as if, somehow, in the Trump administration, this wouldn't be trusted. Of course, this is not a political game. This is about saving lives. I am encouraged by the process that we have seen. I hope people will sign up. When I got into the trial, the Gallup poll that is being done periodically to determine whether people are saying whether they are willing to take it or not was at 50 percent--only 50 percent of Americans saying they were comfortable getting the vaccine. That number in last couple of weeks has gone up to 58 percent. It is heading in the right direction. We need people to understand that this is based on science. These vaccines are like the vaccine for smallpox or polio or measles--virtually, wiping out these diseases in this country. My dad had polio as a kid. Now people don't even talk about it. That is because of the vaccine. They work. We have to view it that way. It is not like the flu vaccine, frankly. The flu vaccine is only effective about one-third of the time. These, what they call efficacy rates, meaning how effective it is, have come in at 90, 95 percent and higher. So we will see what the FDA says here in the next couple of weeks. I am encouraged that we are likely to get some approvals and likely to begin being able to provide these vaccines for those on the frontlines, for those in long-care facilities, for our first responders, and then out from there to the entire population. Because these vaccines won't be widely available for 3 or 4 months, we need to act here and act now to provide a bridge to more normal times. That is really how I see it. This is a short-term emergency response to a desperate need we have right now as cases are rising and the economic consequences are being felt in every family in America--more and more pain. My hope is that Congress will make good on the promise we have seen over the last couple of weeks, where Republicans and Democrats, alike, have come together to say we do have a lot of common ground here; we actually agree on most of this stuff. Who wouldn't be for more money for vaccines and distribution? We need that. Who wouldn't be for more money for small businesses? Who wouldn't be for more money for people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own? They are struggling to pay the rent and pay their car payment. That is what this legislation can do. I am excited about that possibility. Meanwhile, in the first week of December, we have lost 13,726 Americans to COVID-19 compared to half that many in the first week of November. In 1 month, we have had a doubling of the number of fatalities. At no point in time during this pandemic have we seen daily mortality rates like this, except in the early days in March and April when New York and New Jersey hospitals were being overrun. We have a real crisis. Of course, this healthcare crisis is having a direct impact on the economy too. Even with these vaccines on the horizon, it is clear we have to do more to help the economy get through this period of time before we are back to more a normal time. We have to help, in the short term, to address the impact this healthcare crisis is having on families, on employment, on businesses, on schools, on nonprofits, and, yes, on State and local governments. As I see it, our job is to provide that bridge so that the economic rebound that we have begun to see can continue. I am concerned that the recovery we have seen, which has been called a K-shaped recovery--you know, you like to see a recovery come in a V-shape, where you have a recession, you lose jobs and economic growth, and then it comes back up the way it went down. It is called a V-shape. This has been more like a ``K.'' For some people, it has been OK. If you are a big-box hardware store or grocery store in America, you are probably doing pretty well right now. If you are a small business, say, a small retail store or sitdown restaurant next to those big boxes, you are not doing OK. You may already be closed down. Your employees may already be unemployed. If not, you are hanging by a thread and hoping and praying that Congress passes legislation to help you. It has been different for different people. If you have a blue-collar job, you can't telework. If you are in the financial services industry, you are probably doing OK, but if you work in a kitchen making 15 bucks an hour, you are probably not. So it is different for different people in different sectors of our economy. I get that. For some, again, they are doing OK; for others, they are really struggling. Poverty, overall, is up because of what is happening, and this is sad to me. And we can see it in our communities. Go to your local food bank, see how many cars are lined up, how many people are waiting for 3, 4, 5, in Ohio, sometimes 6 hours just to get food for their families. Before the pandemic hit, we had very strong economic growth. I think the pro-growth policies that were put in place here in Congress really helped. The tax reform, the tax cuts, the regulatory relief, using our energy--it all was working. We were having a period of growth that was strong, but also it was a very ``opportunity'' economy. People who had been on the sidelines for years were coming back into our economy. A lot of the benefits were being felt by lower and middle-income workers. Let me give you an example. In February of this year, just before the pandemic started, we had 19 straight months of wage growth of over 3 percent. That is fantastic. We have been wanting that for a decade and a half in Ohio. We had flat wages, even not keeping up with inflation. Finally, we were seeing wage growth. That 3 percent was compounding and was really helping people feel like if they worked hard and played by the rules, they could get ahead. Sadly, when the coronavirus hit, that ended. Before the coronavirus, the national poverty rate was the lowest in the history of America. In February, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest rate since westarted tracking this statistic more than 60 years ago. That is the poverty rate. That is incredible. That is what we all want. After the initial wave of layoffs in the spring, Congress passed the bipartisan CARES Act. That was 9 months ago--9 months ago. It included programs like the stimulus checks and expanded unemployment insurance. It actually helped drive the poverty rate down for a while. Since then, this continual economic pain felt particularly by low- and middle-income Americans, combined with the lack of action on our part here in Congress to help them, has meant the poverty rate has actually gone back up since May by a significant amount. It now sits at 11.4 percent. That means that 7 million more Americans have fallen into poverty since the spring--7 million. When you fall into poverty, it is hard to get back out. As long as this economy remains partly shut down--in some of our States, it is largely shut down if you are in the hospitality business or travel business. As long as this happens and we can see more shutdowns in the coming weeks and months, of course, as this crisis continues to worsen, we will see poverty levels rise unless we provide some relief. Along with the rising poverty rate, what is concerning to me is the fact that more and more people are just giving up hope. There is a stat called the labor force participation rate. It is the share of Americans who are over 16 years old, either working or looking for a job. In February, we hit a 5-year high for labor force participation. That is a good thing. In other words, we had more people participating in the workforce than we had in 5 years. Unfortunately, it has gone back down. It was up to 63.4 percent. Now it is down to 61.7 percent. The October number works out to a labor force that has nearly 4 million fewer participants than it did in February. Just people participating in the economy has gone down. Why do we need this package? We have a real problem on our hands. It is a healthcare crisis, but it is also an economic crisis for so many people. Unfortunately, a record number of women and older Americans are also having to leave the workplace due to either a lack of opportunity or the need to stay home with their kids. For a lot of women, not having childcare is a real problem because the schools are closed. This is driving people out of the workforce as well. This is bad news for businesses trying to reopen, but it is also bad news for our long-term economic health. People who can't find a way off the sidelines right now won't be able to help power the eventual economic recovery we all hope for, and they will miss out on the economic recovery that does happen. It is a bad position to be in. We saw with last week's jobs report that hiring is slowing down, meaning that more people may slip out of the labor force. In all, we are still down 10 million jobs in America since February. Some of my colleagues said to me: My town is doing great or my State is doing great or this industry is doing great. I get that. It is a K-shaped recovery. For some people, it is going well. The fact is that 10 million people--10 million people--that is how many jobs we are down since February. A further slowdown in the economy is going to be tough for these long-term unemployed. My concern is some may never reenter the workforce without action here to help businesses start hiring again. Some of the hardest hit industries in our States, like the travel, leisure, hospitality industries, are facing real losses. Our airline industry is expected to cut the equivalent of about 90,000 jobs by the end of this year--90,000 jobs alone in the airline industry. I spoke to the president of American Airlines today. They are big in Ohio. He called. Guess what. He is really eager for us to pass this coronavirus legislation we are talking about. He is really eager because he needs it desperately to hold on to his employees. He doesn't want to furlough any more people, but he doesn't have the business to keep them working. According to a November survey from the American Hotel and Lodging Association, more than 70 percent of hotels have said that they won't be able to stay in business another 6 months without more assistance--70 percent. Almost 80 percent said they had to lay off more people. Our restaurant industry lost jobs in November for the first time since April. It is a worrying sign that while restaurants were starting to pick up, things were getting better, in November, because of the news of the high level of cases and the concern people had about going out in public and also, in some States, because of a government edict saying you can't go--in some places, they even said you can't have outdoor dining anymore, not just indoor dining. Think of what this does to those restaurants, most of which are small businesses, family-owned, and were already stressed. Some of those restaurants have closed their doors. I know some of them are never going to reopen again. It is not just restaurants. It is bowling alleys; it is movie theaters; it is the place you get your hair cut. A lot of them are suffering. A lot of these challenges are going to get worse soon because the number of the programs we put in place in this pandemic to help provide relief for people struggling are going to expire. That is another reason we have to act. At the end of this year--actually, the day before Christmas--we are going to see some of these programs begin to expire. The pandemic unemployment assistance program that helps the self-employed, that helps gig economy workers, people who would not normally be eligible for unemployment to be able to step forward and get unemployment insurance, is going to end at the end of this month. That is something a lot of my constituents in Ohio have been depending on if they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The pandemic emergency employment compensation program that authorizes another 13 weeks of State benefits, helped by the Federal tax dollar, ends at the end of this month. Of course, there is a moratorium on evictions that ends at the end of this month. The bottom line is that the people, State and local governments, the industries, the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit to date by the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 are going to be the ones who are likely to be hurt most by a continued economic slowdown. As I said, these are problems that, right now, can only be fixed by all of us stepping forward. Congress needs to take action and take action now. We have about a week. We have about a week. Fortunately, again, I am pleased to say that the proposal that is in the works on a bipartisan basis here in the Senate is going to help. It has a total price tag of $908 billion, and you have all heard that, probably, if you have been following what has been going on with this continuing negotiation. It helps everybody. It helps individuals; it helps families; it helps small businesses; it helps industries; it helps those who have been the hardest hit--with targeted resources. It is focused. It is targeted. It is not the $3.5 trillion legislation that has been talked about over the last several months. It is targeted. It is focused. Actually, although it is $908 billion, it is really more like $350 billion because it takes back money that was spent in the CARES Act, which was appropriated by this Congress but not used, and repurposes it for these purposes. So I think it is a focused, targeted effort that will really help. Again, what is exciting about it is that, today, there was a proposal made that says we have this bipartisan framework, which is very similar, apparently, and my hope is that the Speaker of the House, the majority leader here in the Senate, the Democratic leader here in the Senate, the Republican leader in the House, and the President of the United States can all figure out how to get together and make this work. This bipartisan proposal that we have been working on here, I think, does provide a good template. By the way, all of those actors I talked about--all of those players--have said good things about the proposal. It has funding in there to extend the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses. It targets those smallbusinesses that need the help the most. It is really more targeted this time. It is targeted relief for some of our hardest hit industries, including our airlines and our mass transit industry. It includes funds to help those Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--the unemployment insurance extension that I talked about earlier. As a bridge to normalcy, we need this funding. It provides funds for State, local, and Tribal governments based on their revenue shortfalls or their expenses due to COVID--in other words, needs-based. We are also working on commonsense liability reforms to give businesses, nonprofits, schools, healthcare providers, religious organizations, and others the legal protection they need to reopen with the confidence that they are not going to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits that could put them out of business. That is really important because getting these businesses back up and running is a critical part of getting our economy through these next few months. In my view, these protections are essential. I am hopeful that both sides can now come together and find common ground on liability protections that we can all support. Several of my colleagues are working on a proposal here, right now, in the U.S. Senate. All of this gives us hope that we will have better days around the corner. By the way, this proposal is not what any of us would write. It is not the proposal I would write. It is not the proposal our Presiding Officer, who is here in the Chamber, would write. Personally, I would put more emphasis on tax incentives for hiring. We have some good proposals for that. I would put tax incentives in place to get businesses to reopen safely--one called the healthy workplaces tax credit so they could get compensated for putting up the partitions or for having the PPE and providing safer work environments. I would expand the work opportunity tax credit to help those, again, who are on the sidelines in order to bring them back to work through a credit. I would help with regard to the employee retention credit, which was in the CARES Act, that could pick up some of these companies that aren't picked up by the PPP program, companies that have slightly more employees, let's say, so that they don't otherwise qualify. So there is more I would like to do, but do you know what? This proposal is needed. It is needed so badly that, of course, all of us, regardless of our particular interests or our particular ideas, know it is right, and all of us should get behind it. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good--I would even say the enemy of the necessary. Targeted relief now, I think, is the right approach. Most importantly, all of these significant economic problems I laid out and the healthcare crisis I laid out need to be addressed now. As I said earlier, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the health side of this crisis, and our proposal that I have been talking about also helps us get there because it has more funding for vaccine development and vaccine distribution. I talked today to some experts in that area who know a lot more about it than I do, and they said it is necessary. We actually have to provide more funding to keep the vaccine train moving so that, by March and April, we will have it widely available. Again, my hope is that Americans will step up and be vaccinated. By the way, there is also bipartisan legislation that four of us introduced last week--two Republicans, two Democrats--to provide for a public service campaign, not with politicians talking about the importance, as I am doing tonight, but with the experts talking about why the science says that it is a good idea to get vaccinated--again, just like we do for smallpox or polio or the measles. Will another COVID-19 bill solve every problem we face right now? No, but we could do a lot with this proposal to help the most vulnerable individuals just get by for the next several months rather than slip into poverty, rather than miss out on mortgage payments or miss out on their rent, miss out on their car payments, and other bad outcomes. We can help the most vulnerable businesses keep their lights on and their employees on payroll. Frankly, this is work we should have been doing months ago, but we are here now. Let's get it done. My hope is that we can end this year by recapturing that spirit of bipartisanship that was on display in March of this year when we passed the CARES package here in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. That doesn't happen very often. The CARES Act was not a perfect bill either, but we all recognized it was a bill needed for the moment. I hope we can also recognize that another bill is needed now even if it is not perfect. Let's build on the bipartisan proposal we have put forward, and let's ensure that the people we represent get the targeted economic relief they desperately need in the coming months. Folks, let's not leave for the holidays until we have done that. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7273 | null | 1,816 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Judge Dee Benson, who passed away this week after a heroic battle with cancer. Dee had a remarkable and far-reaching legal career, making an impact throughout Utah and the country. But even more than that, he has made an indelible mark as a beloved teacher, mentor, role model, and friend. Dee grew up on small farm in Jordan, UT, across from the old Jordan High School. He served a 2-year mission in Sweden for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and afterwards attended BYU, graduating in 1973 with a degree in physical education. After a brief stint as a student teacher and soccer coach at Hillcrest High, he decided to change career paths and on a whim applied to law school. Dee stumbled onto what would become a brilliant vocation in law. He was one of the very first law students at Brigham Young University, when my late father, Rex Lee, was founding BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School. Dee quickly took to law, grasping legal concepts with speed and ease, and soon became a star of his class, even without spending all his time in the libary. He was an equally affable student, loved by all of his classmates. A gifted athlete, he still managed to participate in school activities and sports while in law school, even playing for the soccer team during his final year and finishing near the top of his class. After graduating in 1976, Dee spent a few months playing professional soccerwith the Utah Golden Spikers of the American Soccer League, and then turned to his law career. He started out in private practice, first at Marineau and Mack and then at Christensen and Martineau. He would later be appointed to positions at the highest levels of law by Presidents, Chief Justices, and Senators. He came to Washington first to work as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Dee was then-Senator Orrin Hatch's chief of staff for 2 years and while there served as counsel on the Iran-Contra Congressional Investigating Committee. He worked as U.S. attorney from 1989 until 1991, when he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, where he served for nearly three decades. As Federal judge, he was appointed as one of the seven judges to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, frequently flying to Washington to review requests for warrants and wiretaps against suspected spies and terrorists. He was also appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Judicial Conference of the United States, a policy-making body within the Federal judicial system. Dee had a deep love of the law and true impartiality as a jurist. In all of his duties, he never sought to impose his own agenda but simply to get the law right--not according to his own personal beliefs or feelings but as he understood it. And as much as Dee loved the law, he was loved by those around him. He brought kindness, humor, and fun to every environment. He was known to keep a bicycle in his chambers and a dart board for his clerks. I myself was lucky enough to have him as my first boss when I clerked for him the year after I graduated from law school. I learned more about the practice of law during that clerkship than I did during all 3 years of law school combined. I will never forget our countless conversations about the law--deep dives on everything from compelled-speech doctrine , the coconspirator hearsay rule, and the requirements for authenticating so-called ``ancient documents'' under the Federal Rules of Evidence--in the courtroom and in his chambers and sometimes even while mountain biking or during a game of ping pong or darts. Everyone at the courthouse--from the prosecutors to the defense counsel, from civil litigants to criminal defendants, from probation officers to support staff--loved and learned daily from Judge Benson. Despite his keen intellect and prominence, he was one of the most humble, genuine people I have ever known. He cared deeply about the happiness of those around them and left everyone more happy and encouraged than when he found them. He treated each person who came into his courtoom with dignity and respect, no matter who you were. Throughout the years, Dee retained his passion for sports and zest for life. He ran marathons, was an avid mountain biker, and mastered every sport that caught his interest. He was a devoted father who, despite the many demands on his time, seemed to maintain constant contact with each of his four children, taking delight in every word they uttered and every activity they pursued. Even his cancer diagnosis would not dampen his spirit or slow him down. After being partially paralyzed and bedridden this past May, by the end of the month he had returned to his chambers in Salt Lake City and had come into work as recently as last week--steadfast and strong until the end. Judge Dee Benson was a true public servant, a gift to Utah and to everyone who had the good fortune to meet him. For those of us who knew and loved Dee, the world will now seem incomplete; but it has been an honor and a blessing to call him a mentor and a friend. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7277-3 | null | 1,817 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Judge Dee Benson, who passed away this week after a heroic battle with cancer. Dee had a remarkable and far-reaching legal career, making an impact throughout Utah and the country. But even more than that, he has made an indelible mark as a beloved teacher, mentor, role model, and friend. Dee grew up on small farm in Jordan, UT, across from the old Jordan High School. He served a 2-year mission in Sweden for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and afterwards attended BYU, graduating in 1973 with a degree in physical education. After a brief stint as a student teacher and soccer coach at Hillcrest High, he decided to change career paths and on a whim applied to law school. Dee stumbled onto what would become a brilliant vocation in law. He was one of the very first law students at Brigham Young University, when my late father, Rex Lee, was founding BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School. Dee quickly took to law, grasping legal concepts with speed and ease, and soon became a star of his class, even without spending all his time in the libary. He was an equally affable student, loved by all of his classmates. A gifted athlete, he still managed to participate in school activities and sports while in law school, even playing for the soccer team during his final year and finishing near the top of his class. After graduating in 1976, Dee spent a few months playing professional soccerwith the Utah Golden Spikers of the American Soccer League, and then turned to his law career. He started out in private practice, first at Marineau and Mack and then at Christensen and Martineau. He would later be appointed to positions at the highest levels of law by Presidents, Chief Justices, and Senators. He came to Washington first to work as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Dee was then-Senator Orrin Hatch's chief of staff for 2 years and while there served as counsel on the Iran-Contra Congressional Investigating Committee. He worked as U.S. attorney from 1989 until 1991, when he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, where he served for nearly three decades. As Federal judge, he was appointed as one of the seven judges to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, frequently flying to Washington to review requests for warrants and wiretaps against suspected spies and terrorists. He was also appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the Judicial Conference of the United States, a policy-making body within the Federal judicial system. Dee had a deep love of the law and true impartiality as a jurist. In all of his duties, he never sought to impose his own agenda but simply to get the law right--not according to his own personal beliefs or feelings but as he understood it. And as much as Dee loved the law, he was loved by those around him. He brought kindness, humor, and fun to every environment. He was known to keep a bicycle in his chambers and a dart board for his clerks. I myself was lucky enough to have him as my first boss when I clerked for him the year after I graduated from law school. I learned more about the practice of law during that clerkship than I did during all 3 years of law school combined. I will never forget our countless conversations about the law--deep dives on everything from compelled-speech doctrine , the coconspirator hearsay rule, and the requirements for authenticating so-called ``ancient documents'' under the Federal Rules of Evidence--in the courtroom and in his chambers and sometimes even while mountain biking or during a game of ping pong or darts. Everyone at the courthouse--from the prosecutors to the defense counsel, from civil litigants to criminal defendants, from probation officers to support staff--loved and learned daily from Judge Benson. Despite his keen intellect and prominence, he was one of the most humble, genuine people I have ever known. He cared deeply about the happiness of those around them and left everyone more happy and encouraged than when he found them. He treated each person who came into his courtoom with dignity and respect, no matter who you were. Throughout the years, Dee retained his passion for sports and zest for life. He ran marathons, was an avid mountain biker, and mastered every sport that caught his interest. He was a devoted father who, despite the many demands on his time, seemed to maintain constant contact with each of his four children, taking delight in every word they uttered and every activity they pursued. Even his cancer diagnosis would not dampen his spirit or slow him down. After being partially paralyzed and bedridden this past May, by the end of the month he had returned to his chambers in Salt Lake City and had come into work as recently as last week--steadfast and strong until the end. Judge Dee Benson was a true public servant, a gift to Utah and to everyone who had the good fortune to meet him. For those of us who knew and loved Dee, the world will now seem incomplete; but it has been an honor and a blessing to call him a mentor and a friend. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7277-3 | null | 1,818 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I am honored to thank and congratulate one of my constituents and one of the Federal Government's unsung heroes, David E. ``Dave'' Benor, who is retiring on January 3, 2021, after more than 48 years of service as a public health attorney at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the General Counsel, HHS-OGC. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1972, Mr. Benor began his career at HHS-OGC and never left, rising to positions of increasing responsibility throughout the years. Since 2004, he has served as the Associate General Counsel for Public Health. In this leadership role, he has led HHS-OGC's Public Health Division, a 100-person office within HHS-OGC that provides legal services to the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Surgeon General, and multiple agencies that comprise the Public Health Service, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Indian Health Service, the Health Services and Resources Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Mr. Benor has worked extensively on product liability, grant law, organ transplant, and vaccine issues, and has particular expertise with the Public Health Service safety net programs, in public health emergency response issues, and in implementing regulatory and compensation programs. Mr. Benor has dedicated his entire career to implementing HHS's mission to advance the health of all people. He has done this by providing authoritative legal advice on major health initiatives, including those related to bioterrorism preparedness, biomedical research, organ transplantation, vaccine development and liability, and the provision of healthcare to medically underserved populations through such programs as the community health center program, the Ryan White HIV/ AIDS Program, and maternal and child health grants. He has been a key legal adviser on the Department's international health initiatives, including Afghan and Iraqi reconstruction, global AIDS programs, and quarantine activities for diseases such as SARS, pandemic influenza, and monkey pox, and has been part of multidisciplinary teams working on the public health response to the War on Terrorism, including the response to anthrax attacks, smallpox vaccine development, COVID-19, and pharmaceutical stockpile development. Mr. Benor has received numerous awards throughout his career. In 2012, President Barack Obama awarded Mr. Benor the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive, one of the highest awards that a career Senior Executive Service member may receive. Dave Benor's impact on public health will be felt for years to come both through his work on a wide variety of public health programs and by the inspiring example he has provided for the many attorneys with whom he worked and mentored. I was pleased to have a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend as a symbol of our Nation's thanks to this outstanding public servant. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Dave Benor for his distinguished service to our country and to wish him all the best in the coming years as he enjoys his well-earned retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7277 | null | 1,819 |
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-6036. A communication from the Associate General Counsel, General Law and Research Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, two (2) reports relative to vacancies in the Department of Agriculture, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-6037. A communication from the Associate General Counsel, General Law and Research Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, three (3) reports relative to vacancies in the Department of Agriculture, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-6038. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Amending Certain Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990'' (31 CFR Parts 501, 510, 535, 536, 541, 542, 544, 546, 547, 548, 549, 560, 561, 566, 576, 583, 584, 588, 592, 594, 597, and 598) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6039. A communication from the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Statement on Central Counterparties Authorized under the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation Seeking to Register as a Clearing Agency or to Request Exemption from Certain Requirements Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6040. A communication from the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Commission Statement on Certain Provisions of Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants'' (RIN3235-AL10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6041. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Amending the North Korea Sanctions Regulations'' (31 CFR Parts 510) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6042. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Amending the Zimbabwe Sanctions Regulations'' (31 CFR Parts 541) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6043. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement the Syria-related Sanctions Regulations as a New Part 569 in 31 CFR Chapter V'' (31 CFR Part 569) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6044. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Amending the Nicaragua Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 582, to Incorporate the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act of 2018'' (31 CFR Parts 582) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6045. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Amending Appendix A of the Reporting, Procedures, and Penalties Regulations, 31 CFR Part 501, to Amend the Definition of `Applicable Schedule Amount' Contained in Appendix A'' (31 CFR Part 501) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6046. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Amending the Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines in OFAC's Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 31 CFR Part 501 Appendix A'' (31 CFR Part 501) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6047. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Making Amendments to 31 CFR Part 515, the Cuban Asset Control Regulations'' (31 CFR Part 515) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6048. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement the International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions Regulations as a New Part 520 in 31 CFR Chapter V'' (31 CFR Parts 520) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6049. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Amending the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 544, and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 560'' (31 CFR Parts 544, and 560) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6050. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Making Amendments to 31 CFR Part 515, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations'' (31 CFR Part 515) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-6051. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Organ Procurement Organizations Conditions for Coverage: Revisions to the Outcome Measure Requirements for Organ Procurement Organizations; Final Rule'' (RIN0938-AU02) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-6052. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Most Favored Nation (MFN) Model (CMS-5528-IFC)'' (RIN0938-AT91) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-6053. A communication from the Acting Director, Office of Acquisition and Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Leave and Holidays for U.S. Personal Services Contractors, Including Family and Medical Leave'' (RIN0412- AA86) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-6054. A communication from the Executive Secretary, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Deputy Administrator, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-6055. A communication from the Acting Director, Office of Acquisition and Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``The Rules for Procurement of Certain Essential Medical Supplies Financed by USAID during the COVID-19 Pandemic'' (RIN0412-AB02) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-6056. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Benefits Payable in Terminated Single- Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits'' (29 CFR Part 4022) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-6057. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Information Blocking and the ONC Health IT Certification Program: Extension of Compliance Dates and Timeframes in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency'' (RIN0955-AA02) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-6058. A communication from the Director of Rural Development, Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Change in Initial Guarantee Fee and Annual Guarantee Fee'' (RIN0575- AD15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-6059. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program'' (RIN0955-AA01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-6060. A communication from the Section Chief of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention That Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act of 2018: Dispensing and Administering Controlled Substances for Medication-Assisted Treatment'' ((RIN1117-AB55) (Docket No. DEA-499)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-6061. A communication from the Executive Director of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Methods of Withdrawing Funds from the Thrift Savings Plan'' (5 CFR Parts 1650) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-6062. A communication from the Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), transmitting, pursuant to law, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for USAID's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-6063. 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 2021-02, Introduction'' (FAC 2021-02) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-6064. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting two (2) legislative proposals relative to the President of the United States' Fiscal Year 2021 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-6065. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-6066. A communication from the Assistant Administrator of the Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Olceridine in Schedule II'' ((21 CFR Part 1308) (Docket No. DEA-715)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-6067. A communication from the Program Analyst, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``In the Matter of Further Streamlining of Part 25 Rules Governing Satellite Services'' ((FCC 20-159) (IB Docket No. 18-134)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-6068. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revision of the Commission's Part 76 Review Procedures, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, Revision of the Commission's Program Carriage Rules'' ((MB Docket No. 20-70, 17-105, and 11-131) (FCC 20-162)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7279 | null | 1,820 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burr, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Gardner, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lee, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Moran, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Paul, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Peters, Mr. Portman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Romney, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Udall, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Young) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 797 Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was born on February 3, 1933, in Salisbury, Maryland, to Matina and Spyros P. Sarbanes, who had emigrated from Laconia, Greece; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes graduated from Wicomico High School and earned a full scholarship and a bachelor's degree from the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University in 1954; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes earned a Rhodes Scholarship and graduated from Balliol College of the University of Oxford with a First Class degree in 1957, and then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1960; Whereas, in 1960, Paul Spyros Sarbanes married his wife, Christine Dunbar, who was his partner in all his endeavors, in addition to being a wonderful teacher of the classics, Latin, Greek, and French, an avid reader, and a volunteer with the Enoch Pratt Free Library, the Walters Art Museum, and the Baltimore Volunteer Groups to the United States Fund for UNICEF; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes and his late wife Christine have-- (1) 3 children, John, Michael, and Janet; and (2) 7 grandchildren; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes drew inspiration and passion for public service from the ancient Greeks, who said, ``those who lived only in private life were falling short''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was a member of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Annunciation in Baltimore, Maryland, and held the highest lay office of the Church, ``Order of St. Andrew, Archon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1966; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1970, and in 1974, he introduced the first articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon for obstruction of justice; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was elected to the United States Senate in 1976, and served on the Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Foreign Relations, and Budget of the Senate, and the Joint Economic Committee; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes's long-time partner in the Senate, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, jokingly referred to them as ``diner Democrats'' in recognition of his parents, who owned a restaurant, and hers, who owned a grocery store, and their dedication to the everyday concerns of Marylanders and the people of the United States; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes developed a reputation for honesty, intellect, and integrity, working cooperatively with his colleagues and preferring results over credit; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes had a deep understanding of economic issues, honed as an aide to Walter Heller on President John F. Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors, and was a leader on critical financial issues including the Community Reinvestment Act, affordable housing, and anti- money laundering efforts; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and wrote the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which passed the Senate unanimously, to reform and strengthen oversight of corporate governance and the accounting industry in the wake of the Enron scandal; Whereas President George W. Bush said the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 included ``the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt'' and President Barack Obama called it ``a towering achievement that will strengthen the American economy for many years to come''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was a champion of the Chesapeake Bay, working to improve access through the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails Program and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and to improve the health of the Bay with the Chesapeake Restoration Act, oyster restoration, and the Poplar Island project; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes had a reputation as a man of deep principle, which led to his inclusion in the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon and the investigations into Iran Contra and Whitewater; Whereas journalist and author Elizabeth Drew, writing about Watergate, wrote of Paul Spyros Sarbanes, ``History and process lift people, and they have lifted this group--and given the public a chance to see it. Paul Sarbanes would not have looked at all bad at the Constitutional Convention; he might have been one of the great ones''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was committed to the United States' leadership in the world, sought peaceful engagement with our allies, played a key role in the ratification of the Panama Canal treaties and anti-apartheid laws, and voted against the authorization of use of military force in Iraq in 2003; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes received numerous awards for his time in service, including the Paul H. Douglas Ethics in Government Award, the Rolfe Award for Extraordinary Impact on Policy in Economics, Business, and Finance, and the Cox, Coleman, Richardson Award for Distinguished Public Service; Whereas, in his farewell speech to the Senate, Paul Spyros Sarbanes said, ``Throughout my years in public service, I have worked to the limits of my ability to provide the people of Maryland and the Nation dedicated, informed, and independent representation based on the fundamental principles of integrity and intelligence. I have been guided in this effort by a vision of a decent and just America, based on a strong sense of community and offering fairness and opportunity to all its people''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes continued in his farewell speech that ``Service in this body has reinforced, many times over, my understanding and commitment to the institutions upon which our system of democratic governance critically depends'' and ``So long as the vision of America's promise continues to shine brightly in this body, I have every confidence that our Nation will prevail in the face of great challenges and that its future will be assured''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was the longest-serving Senator from the State of Maryland when he retired in 2006; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes served as a mentor and friend to his colleagues and the dedicated staff in his offices on Capitol Hill and in the State of Maryland; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes will be remembered for-- (1) his intellect, understanding of issues, and incisive questioning of witnesses before his committees; (2) the trust he built and wisdom and counsel he shared with his colleagues; and (3) his unwavering commitment to the people of the United States, and especially the people he served in Maryland; and Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was a loving husband, father, grandfather, and son who passed away on December 6, 2020, at the age of 87: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the Senate-- (A) has heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes, former member of the United States Senate; (B) recognizes the life and achievements of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes; (C) expresses condolences to the family of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes on his passing; and (D) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate-- (i) communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives; and (ii) transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes; and (2) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7283 | null | 1,821 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burr, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Gardner, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lee, Mrs. Loeffler, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Moran, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Paul, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Peters, Mr. Portman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Romney, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Udall, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Young) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 797 Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was born on February 3, 1933, in Salisbury, Maryland, to Matina and Spyros P. Sarbanes, who had emigrated from Laconia, Greece; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes graduated from Wicomico High School and earned a full scholarship and a bachelor's degree from the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University in 1954; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes earned a Rhodes Scholarship and graduated from Balliol College of the University of Oxford with a First Class degree in 1957, and then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1960; Whereas, in 1960, Paul Spyros Sarbanes married his wife, Christine Dunbar, who was his partner in all his endeavors, in addition to being a wonderful teacher of the classics, Latin, Greek, and French, an avid reader, and a volunteer with the Enoch Pratt Free Library, the Walters Art Museum, and the Baltimore Volunteer Groups to the United States Fund for UNICEF; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes and his late wife Christine have-- (1) 3 children, John, Michael, and Janet; and (2) 7 grandchildren; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes drew inspiration and passion for public service from the ancient Greeks, who said, ``those who lived only in private life were falling short''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was a member of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Annunciation in Baltimore, Maryland, and held the highest lay office of the Church, ``Order of St. Andrew, Archon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1966; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1970, and in 1974, he introduced the first articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon for obstruction of justice; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was elected to the United States Senate in 1976, and served on the Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Foreign Relations, and Budget of the Senate, and the Joint Economic Committee; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes's long-time partner in the Senate, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, jokingly referred to them as ``diner Democrats'' in recognition of his parents, who owned a restaurant, and hers, who owned a grocery store, and their dedication to the everyday concerns of Marylanders and the people of the United States; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes developed a reputation for honesty, intellect, and integrity, working cooperatively with his colleagues and preferring results over credit; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes had a deep understanding of economic issues, honed as an aide to Walter Heller on President John F. Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors, and was a leader on critical financial issues including the Community Reinvestment Act, affordable housing, and anti- money laundering efforts; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and wrote the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which passed the Senate unanimously, to reform and strengthen oversight of corporate governance and the accounting industry in the wake of the Enron scandal; Whereas President George W. Bush said the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 included ``the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt'' and President Barack Obama called it ``a towering achievement that will strengthen the American economy for many years to come''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was a champion of the Chesapeake Bay, working to improve access through the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails Program and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and to improve the health of the Bay with the Chesapeake Restoration Act, oyster restoration, and the Poplar Island project; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes had a reputation as a man of deep principle, which led to his inclusion in the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon and the investigations into Iran Contra and Whitewater; Whereas journalist and author Elizabeth Drew, writing about Watergate, wrote of Paul Spyros Sarbanes, ``History and process lift people, and they have lifted this group--and given the public a chance to see it. Paul Sarbanes would not have looked at all bad at the Constitutional Convention; he might have been one of the great ones''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was committed to the United States' leadership in the world, sought peaceful engagement with our allies, played a key role in the ratification of the Panama Canal treaties and anti-apartheid laws, and voted against the authorization of use of military force in Iraq in 2003; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes received numerous awards for his time in service, including the Paul H. Douglas Ethics in Government Award, the Rolfe Award for Extraordinary Impact on Policy in Economics, Business, and Finance, and the Cox, Coleman, Richardson Award for Distinguished Public Service; Whereas, in his farewell speech to the Senate, Paul Spyros Sarbanes said, ``Throughout my years in public service, I have worked to the limits of my ability to provide the people of Maryland and the Nation dedicated, informed, and independent representation based on the fundamental principles of integrity and intelligence. I have been guided in this effort by a vision of a decent and just America, based on a strong sense of community and offering fairness and opportunity to all its people''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes continued in his farewell speech that ``Service in this body has reinforced, many times over, my understanding and commitment to the institutions upon which our system of democratic governance critically depends'' and ``So long as the vision of America's promise continues to shine brightly in this body, I have every confidence that our Nation will prevail in the face of great challenges and that its future will be assured''; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was the longest-serving Senator from the State of Maryland when he retired in 2006; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes served as a mentor and friend to his colleagues and the dedicated staff in his offices on Capitol Hill and in the State of Maryland; Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes will be remembered for-- (1) his intellect, understanding of issues, and incisive questioning of witnesses before his committees; (2) the trust he built and wisdom and counsel he shared with his colleagues; and (3) his unwavering commitment to the people of the United States, and especially the people he served in Maryland; and Whereas Paul Spyros Sarbanes was a loving husband, father, grandfather, and son who passed away on December 6, 2020, at the age of 87: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the Senate-- (A) has heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes, former member of the United States Senate; (B) recognizes the life and achievements of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes; (C) expresses condolences to the family of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes on his passing; and (D) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate-- (i) communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives; and (ii) transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes; and (2) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the Honorable Paul Spyros Sarbanes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7283 | null | 1,822 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2694. Mr. PORTMAN (for Mr. Alexander) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5663, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to destroy counterfeit devices | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7284-2 | null | 1,823 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2694. Mr. PORTMAN (for Mr. Alexander) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 5663, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to destroy counterfeit devices; as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-08-pt1-PgS7284-3 | null | 1,824 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgH7062-4 | null | 1,825 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1426) to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to address insufficient compensation of employees and other personnel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PALLONE | House | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgH7071 | null | 1,826 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8900) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgH7092-2 | null | 1,827 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5758) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to make technical corrections to the energy conservation standard for ceiling fans, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar) | House | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgH7093 | null | 1,828 |
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-5928. A letter from the Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (RIN: 3038-AE31) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5929. A letter from the Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendments to Regulations Relating to Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting Requirements (RIN: 3038-AE32) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5930. A letter from the Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Real-Time Public Reporting Requirements (RIN: 3038-AE60) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5931. A letter from the Deputy Administrator for Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Child Nutrition Programs: Rescission of Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Flexibilities: Notice of Vacatur [FNS-2020-0037] (RIN: 0584-AE84) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5932. A letter from the Secretary, Division of Clearing and Risk; Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Swap Clearing Requirement Exemptions (RIN: 3038-AE33) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5933. A letter from the Under Secretary, Acquisition and Sustainment, Department of Defense, transmitting a report titled, ``Summary Report to Congress of the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2019 Inventory of Contracted Services'', pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2330a(c)(1); Public Law 107-107, Sec. 801(c)(1) (as amended by Public Law 114-328, Sec. 812); (130 Stat. 2269); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5934. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's interim rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Restriction on the Acquisition of Tantalum (DFARS Case 2020-D007) [Docket: DARS-2020-0035] (RIN: 0750-AK94) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5935. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds (DFARS Case 2019-D036) [Docket: DARS-2020-0002] (RIN: 0750-AK76) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5936. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Treatment of Certain Items as Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2019-D029) [Docket: DARS-2019-0052] (RIN: 0750- AK66) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5937. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clause ``Substitutions for Military or Federal Specifications and Standards'' (DFARS Case 2019-D023) [Docket: DARS-2020-0006] (RIN: 0750-AK60) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5938. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Provision ``Alternate Preservation, Packaging, and Packing'' (DFARS Case 2019-D022) [Docket: DARS-2019-0056] (RIN: 0750-AK59) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5939. A letter from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Provision and Clause on Reserve Officer Training Corps and Military Recruiting on Campus [Docket No.: DARS-2020-0030] (RIN: 0750-AK89) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5940. A letter from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clauses related to Taxes Applied to Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan [Docket No.: DARS-2020- 0018] (RIN: 0750-AL11) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5941. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Rural Development, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Change in Initial Guarantee Fee and Annual Guarantee Fee [Docket No.: RHS-20-MFH-0027] (RIN: 0575-AD15) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5942. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting the Agency's Major final rule -- Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework (RIN: 2590-AA95) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5943. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's policy Statement -- Statement on Central Counterparties Authorized under the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation Seeking to Register as a Clearing Agency or to Request Exemption from Certain Requirements Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [Release No.: 34-90490] received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5944. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's policy statement -- Commission Statement on Certain Provisions of Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Participants [Release No.: 34-84511; File No.: S7-24-18] (RIN: 3235-AL10) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5945. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Management's Discussion and Analysis, Selected Financial Data, and Supplementary Financial Information [Release No.: 33-10890; 34-90459; IC-34100; File No.: S7-01-20] (RIN: 3235- AM48) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5946. A letter from the Chief of Staff, OSHA, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway Work [Docket ID: OSHA-2015-0012] (RIN: 1218-AD07) received November 17, 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-5947. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits received December 2, 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-5948. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Report to Congress on ``The 12th Review of the Backlog of Postmarketing Requirements and Postmarketing Commitments'', pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 355(k)(5)(B); June 25, 1938, ch. 675, Sec. 505(k)(5)(B) (as added by Public Law 110-85, Sec. 921); (121 Stat. 962); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5949. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Revision of the Commission's Part 76 Review [MB Docket No. 20-70]; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative [MB Docket No. 17-105]; Revision of the Commission's Program Carriage Rules [MB Docket No. 11-131] received December 2, 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-5950. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of Economics and Analytics, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America [GN Docket No.: 20-32] December 9, 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-5951. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's NUREG report -- Dry Storage and Transportation of High Burnup Spent Nuclear Fuel Final Report (NUREG-2224) received December 7, 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-5952. A letter from the Chairman, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting the Board's Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress, for the period April 1, 2020 -- September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5953. A letter from the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the American Burying Beetle From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule [Docket No.: FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] (RIN: 1018-BD46) received December 7, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-5954. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Annual Report to Congress on Investigation, Enforcement, and Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Requirements, pursuant to 34 U.S.C. 20991; Public Law 109-248, Sec. 635; (120 Stat. 644); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5955. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Semiannual Reports of Lobbying Disclosure Act Enforcement for 2017 -- 2019 and January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5956. A letter from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Trademark Fee Adjustment [Docket No.: PTO-T-2019-0027] (RIN: 0651-AD42) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5957. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Breton Sound, New Orleans [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0684] (RIN: 1625- AA00) received December 2, 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-5958. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; J5D Optic Line Replacement, Detroit River, Detroit, MI [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0610] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5959. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; East River, New York, NY [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0600] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5960. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Fleet Week Demonstration Area, San Diego, CA [Docket No.: USCG-2020- 0655] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received December 2, 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-5961. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Boat Parade; San Diego, CA [Docket No.: USCG- 2020-0656] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received December 2, 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-5962. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Breton Sound, New Orleans, LA [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0684] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5963. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Marker 721-725, Memphis, TN [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0564] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5964. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation and Policy Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Reimbursement of Qualifying Adoption Expenses for Certain Veterans (RIN: 2900- AQ01) received December 2, 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-5965. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Extension of Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) Application Periods in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (RIN: 2900- AQ98) received December 2, 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-5966. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Administrative Procedures: Guidance Documents (RIN: 2900-AQ92) received December 2, 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-5967. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Authority of VA Professionals to Practice Health Care (RIN: 2900-AQ94) received December 2, 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-5968. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Disclosure of Certain Protected Records Without Written Consent (2900-AQ64) received December 2, 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-2020-12-09-pt1-PgH7108 | null | 1,829 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-5928. A letter from the Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (RIN: 3038-AE31) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5929. A letter from the Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendments to Regulations Relating to Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting Requirements (RIN: 3038-AE32) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5930. A letter from the Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Real-Time Public Reporting Requirements (RIN: 3038-AE60) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5931. A letter from the Deputy Administrator for Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Child Nutrition Programs: Rescission of Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Flexibilities: Notice of Vacatur [FNS-2020-0037] (RIN: 0584-AE84) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5932. A letter from the Secretary, Division of Clearing and Risk; Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Swap Clearing Requirement Exemptions (RIN: 3038-AE33) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-5933. A letter from the Under Secretary, Acquisition and Sustainment, Department of Defense, transmitting a report titled, ``Summary Report to Congress of the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2019 Inventory of Contracted Services'', pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2330a(c)(1); Public Law 107-107, Sec. 801(c)(1) (as amended by Public Law 114-328, Sec. 812); (130 Stat. 2269); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5934. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's interim rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Restriction on the Acquisition of Tantalum (DFARS Case 2020-D007) [Docket: DARS-2020-0035] (RIN: 0750-AK94) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5935. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds (DFARS Case 2019-D036) [Docket: DARS-2020-0002] (RIN: 0750-AK76) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5936. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Treatment of Certain Items as Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2019-D029) [Docket: DARS-2019-0052] (RIN: 0750- AK66) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5937. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clause ``Substitutions for Military or Federal Specifications and Standards'' (DFARS Case 2019-D023) [Docket: DARS-2020-0006] (RIN: 0750-AK60) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5938. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Provision ``Alternate Preservation, Packaging, and Packing'' (DFARS Case 2019-D022) [Docket: DARS-2019-0056] (RIN: 0750-AK59) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5939. A letter from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Provision and Clause on Reserve Officer Training Corps and Military Recruiting on Campus [Docket No.: DARS-2020-0030] (RIN: 0750-AK89) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5940. A letter from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clauses related to Taxes Applied to Foreign Contracts in Afghanistan [Docket No.: DARS-2020- 0018] (RIN: 0750-AL11) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5941. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Rural Development, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Change in Initial Guarantee Fee and Annual Guarantee Fee [Docket No.: RHS-20-MFH-0027] (RIN: 0575-AD15) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5942. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting the Agency's Major final rule -- Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework (RIN: 2590-AA95) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5943. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's policy Statement -- Statement on Central Counterparties Authorized under the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation Seeking to Register as a Clearing Agency or to Request Exemption from Certain Requirements Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [Release No.: 34-90490] received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5944. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's policy statement -- Commission Statement on Certain Provisions of Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Participants [Release No.: 34-84511; File No.: S7-24-18] (RIN: 3235-AL10) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5945. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Management's Discussion and Analysis, Selected Financial Data, and Supplementary Financial Information [Release No.: 33-10890; 34-90459; IC-34100; File No.: S7-01-20] (RIN: 3235- AM48) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-5946. A letter from the Chief of Staff, OSHA, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway Work [Docket ID: OSHA-2015-0012] (RIN: 1218-AD07) received November 17, 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-5947. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits received December 2, 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-5948. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Report to Congress on ``The 12th Review of the Backlog of Postmarketing Requirements and Postmarketing Commitments'', pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 355(k)(5)(B); June 25, 1938, ch. 675, Sec. 505(k)(5)(B) (as added by Public Law 110-85, Sec. 921); (121 Stat. 962); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-5949. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Revision of the Commission's Part 76 Review [MB Docket No. 20-70]; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative [MB Docket No. 17-105]; Revision of the Commission's Program Carriage Rules [MB Docket No. 11-131] received December 2, 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-5950. A letter from the Program Analyst, Office of Economics and Analytics, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America [GN Docket No.: 20-32] December 9, 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-5951. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's NUREG report -- Dry Storage and Transportation of High Burnup Spent Nuclear Fuel Final Report (NUREG-2224) received December 7, 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-5952. A letter from the Chairman, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting the Board's Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress, for the period April 1, 2020 -- September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5953. A letter from the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the American Burying Beetle From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule [Docket No.: FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] (RIN: 1018-BD46) received December 7, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-5954. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Annual Report to Congress on Investigation, Enforcement, and Implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Requirements, pursuant to 34 U.S.C. 20991; Public Law 109-248, Sec. 635; (120 Stat. 644); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5955. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Semiannual Reports of Lobbying Disclosure Act Enforcement for 2017 -- 2019 and January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5956. A letter from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Trademark Fee Adjustment [Docket No.: PTO-T-2019-0027] (RIN: 0651-AD42) received December 2, 2020, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5957. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Breton Sound, New Orleans [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0684] (RIN: 1625- AA00) received December 2, 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-5958. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; J5D Optic Line Replacement, Detroit River, Detroit, MI [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0610] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5959. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; East River, New York, NY [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0600] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5960. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Fleet Week Demonstration Area, San Diego, CA [Docket No.: USCG-2020- 0655] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received December 2, 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-5961. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Boat Parade; San Diego, CA [Docket No.: USCG- 2020-0656] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received December 2, 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-5962. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Breton Sound, New Orleans, LA [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0684] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5963. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Marker 721-725, Memphis, TN [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0564] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 2, 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-5964. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation and Policy Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Reimbursement of Qualifying Adoption Expenses for Certain Veterans (RIN: 2900- AQ01) received December 2, 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-5965. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Extension of Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) Application Periods in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (RIN: 2900- AQ98) received December 2, 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-5966. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Administrative Procedures: Guidance Documents (RIN: 2900-AQ92) received December 2, 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-5967. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Authority of VA Professionals to Practice Health Care (RIN: 2900-AQ94) received December 2, 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-5968. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Disclosure of Certain Protected Records Without Written Consent (2900-AQ64) received December 2, 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-2020-12-09-pt1-PgH7108 | null | 1,830 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the American people are hurting. We are in the thick of one of the worst national crises in modern memory, and people's eyes are fixed on Congress. They need the House and the Senate to stop chasing our tails and make a law. There are small business employees who have held onto their jobs all this time because of the Paycheck Protection Program but are facing the prospect they might be laid off now, with vaccines just around the corner, because Washington fumbles the ball in the red zone. There are medically vulnerable Americans who have watched Operation Warp Speed appear to succeed at a historic pace, but Congress can't even agree to fully fund the distribution efforts that will get the vaccines to people. There are Americans who have been thrown out of work, through no fault of their own, who are watching Federal aid programs tick toward expiration in a few weeks, even though neither side in Congress opposes extending them. Senate Republicans have made one offer after another after another to try and make law on all the significant areas where nobody even disagrees. We spent July, August, September, October, and November trying different ways to create common ground, but the Speaker of the House and the Senate Democratic leader have been just as consistent. At every turn, they have delayed, deflected, moved the goalposts, and made the huge number of places where Congress agrees into a hostage--into a hostage--of the few places where we do not agree. Back in the summertime, I pointed out the obvious. I said leading Democrats simply just didn't want any more help to reach American families before the election occurred. The other side claimed great offense; how insulting to even suggest that such cynicism might be at play. And now they are admitting it out loud. Yesterday, on CNN, the Democratic whip was asked point-blank why the Speaker and the Democratic leader were so unwilling to play ball back in the autumn. The No. 2 Democrat responded: ``[Well], there was some exuberance involved because an election was coming.'' Well, he gets points for candor: ``because an election was coming.'' A few days ago, Speaker Pelosi told reporters why she reversed months ofstatements and suddenly began discussing comparatively more reasonable sums of money. Her answer was simple. She thinks the Presidential election went the way she wanted. The Speaker of the House views it as a success that she denied struggling people relief they badly needed for months because she thinks she got the political result she was after. I count no fewer than 10 separate times that top Democrats rejected or blocked various Republican efforts to jump-start the process, so here is just a partial sampling. In July, Republicans sketched a comprehensive plan for safe schools, jobs, and healthcare. We could have made law in July, but the Democratic leader wouldn't even engage with it. Just before August, Republicans tried to at least extend unemployment aid before it expired. Democrats blocked that as well. In September, we tried something else: a targeted effort to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for PPP, vaccine development, and other priorities. Every Democrat who voted blocked us from even debating it, and they did it a second time a month later in October. Last week, after speaking with the administration, I made yet another overture. The Democratic leader said: No thanks. And just yesterday, the Speaker and the Democratic leader brushed off two different overtures in the space of about 2 hours. I suggested that both sides drop what seemed to be the most controversial demand in the eyes of our counterparts. Democrats continued to oppose commonsense legal protections that university presidents have been begging for, and Republicans see no need to send huge sums of money to State and local governments whose tax revenues have actually gone up--gone up. Negotiating 101 suggests we set those two controversial pieces aside and plow ahead with a huge pile of things that we agree on, but that would require both sides to truly want to get an outcome. Just hours after Democrats poured cold water on that, Secretary Mnuchin tried another new tack and sent over an offer, and in a bizarre and schizophrenic press release, the Speaker and the leader said the administration was obstructing negotiations by negotiating. Two more brush-offs in about 2 hours. More deflection, more delay, and more suffering for innocent Americans. Can anyone point to a single sign--a single sign--from April through now, that Democratic leaders have seriously wanted another bipartisan deal to become law? Can anybody name one way--just one--the Democratic leaders would have behaved differently if their singular goal was to kill any compromise? That hypothetical world looks suspiciously like the world we have been living in. Think of it. We have a Speaker of the House from San Francisco who has spent months ensuring that unemployed Californians can't have jobless aid extended and California restaurants can't get another round of PPP unless the Governor of California gets a Federal slush fund out of proportion to any proven need. Do working families agree they should not get any more help themselves unless the Governors and State legislators get a controversial bailout? Are struggling Americans saying: Thank goodness the Democrats are bravely--bravely--blocking help for me and my family unless my State politicians get some more cash? I would say not. Our people need more help. There is a huge list of helpful policies that both sides agree on. This need not be rocket science. But we can't do a thing unless the Democrats decide they actually want to make a law. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7289-6 | null | 1,831 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the American people are hurting. We are in the thick of one of the worst national crises in modern memory, and people's eyes are fixed on Congress. They need the House and the Senate to stop chasing our tails and make a law. There are small business employees who have held onto their jobs all this time because of the Paycheck Protection Program but are facing the prospect they might be laid off now, with vaccines just around the corner, because Washington fumbles the ball in the red zone. There are medically vulnerable Americans who have watched Operation Warp Speed appear to succeed at a historic pace, but Congress can't even agree to fully fund the distribution efforts that will get the vaccines to people. There are Americans who have been thrown out of work, through no fault of their own, who are watching Federal aid programs tick toward expiration in a few weeks, even though neither side in Congress opposes extending them. Senate Republicans have made one offer after another after another to try and make law on all the significant areas where nobody even disagrees. We spent July, August, September, October, and November trying different ways to create common ground, but the Speaker of the House and the Senate Democratic leader have been just as consistent. At every turn, they have delayed, deflected, moved the goalposts, and made the huge number of places where Congress agrees into a hostage--into a hostage--of the few places where we do not agree. Back in the summertime, I pointed out the obvious. I said leading Democrats simply just didn't want any more help to reach American families before the election occurred. The other side claimed great offense; how insulting to even suggest that such cynicism might be at play. And now they are admitting it out loud. Yesterday, on CNN, the Democratic whip was asked point-blank why the Speaker and the Democratic leader were so unwilling to play ball back in the autumn. The No. 2 Democrat responded: ``[Well], there was some exuberance involved because an election was coming.'' Well, he gets points for candor: ``because an election was coming.'' A few days ago, Speaker Pelosi told reporters why she reversed months ofstatements and suddenly began discussing comparatively more reasonable sums of money. Her answer was simple. She thinks the Presidential election went the way she wanted. The Speaker of the House views it as a success that she denied struggling people relief they badly needed for months because she thinks she got the political result she was after. I count no fewer than 10 separate times that top Democrats rejected or blocked various Republican efforts to jump-start the process, so here is just a partial sampling. In July, Republicans sketched a comprehensive plan for safe schools, jobs, and healthcare. We could have made law in July, but the Democratic leader wouldn't even engage with it. Just before August, Republicans tried to at least extend unemployment aid before it expired. Democrats blocked that as well. In September, we tried something else: a targeted effort to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for PPP, vaccine development, and other priorities. Every Democrat who voted blocked us from even debating it, and they did it a second time a month later in October. Last week, after speaking with the administration, I made yet another overture. The Democratic leader said: No thanks. And just yesterday, the Speaker and the Democratic leader brushed off two different overtures in the space of about 2 hours. I suggested that both sides drop what seemed to be the most controversial demand in the eyes of our counterparts. Democrats continued to oppose commonsense legal protections that university presidents have been begging for, and Republicans see no need to send huge sums of money to State and local governments whose tax revenues have actually gone up--gone up. Negotiating 101 suggests we set those two controversial pieces aside and plow ahead with a huge pile of things that we agree on, but that would require both sides to truly want to get an outcome. Just hours after Democrats poured cold water on that, Secretary Mnuchin tried another new tack and sent over an offer, and in a bizarre and schizophrenic press release, the Speaker and the leader said the administration was obstructing negotiations by negotiating. Two more brush-offs in about 2 hours. More deflection, more delay, and more suffering for innocent Americans. Can anyone point to a single sign--a single sign--from April through now, that Democratic leaders have seriously wanted another bipartisan deal to become law? Can anybody name one way--just one--the Democratic leaders would have behaved differently if their singular goal was to kill any compromise? That hypothetical world looks suspiciously like the world we have been living in. Think of it. We have a Speaker of the House from San Francisco who has spent months ensuring that unemployed Californians can't have jobless aid extended and California restaurants can't get another round of PPP unless the Governor of California gets a Federal slush fund out of proportion to any proven need. Do working families agree they should not get any more help themselves unless the Governors and State legislators get a controversial bailout? Are struggling Americans saying: Thank goodness the Democrats are bravely--bravely--blocking help for me and my family unless my State politicians get some more cash? I would say not. Our people need more help. There is a huge list of helpful policies that both sides agree on. This need not be rocket science. But we can't do a thing unless the Democrats decide they actually want to make a law. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7289-6 | null | 1,832 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Allen Dickerson, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2025. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7291-3 | null | 1,833 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Shana M. Broussard, of Louisiana, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2023. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7294-3 | null | 1,834 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination. The bill clerk read the nomination of Sean J. Cooksey, of Missouri, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2021. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7294-4 | null | 1,835 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose another massive infusion of arms into the volatile Middle East. Someone must ask the question: Can a lasting peace be purchased with more weapons? Will selling sophisticated fighter jets and weaponized drones bring more stability to the Middle East? Is it wise to pour fuel on the fire that burns in the Middle East? The Senate today is debating with these joint resolutions whether to disapprove of the announced sale of 50 F-35s and 18 Reaper Drones to the United Arab Emirates, a country that has recently taken encouraging steps specifically toward Israel, but with an overall record that should give concern. The primary questions we should be asking ourselves are: To what ends has the UAE deployed its military and its military technology in recent years? Does the UAE have a record that we can trust? What military behavior are we encouraging and rewarding with this sale? Will the U.S. bear responsibility if the UAE misuses these incredibly sophisticated weapons? The answers to these questions are far from clear. In fact, the UAE's record should give us pause. The UAE is not a democracy. Their human rights record is mixed, and their military activities in the region, as a one-time member of the Saudi coalition, contributed to the bloodshed and devastation in Yemen. On human rights, let's look at some recent reported examples. In 2017, Ahmed Monsoor, a human rights activist, was given a 10-year prison sentence based on his speech. Specifically, he was charged for posting ``false information that harms national unity'' on social media. The charges against him were based on a call for the release of another activist who had been put in prison for political speech. Is this the kind of democracy or lack of democracy and lack of speech that should be rewarded with our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2017, the UAE government also handed down a 10-year sentence to Nasser bin-Ghaith, an economist, for his criticism of the UAE and Egyptian Governments. Is this the kind of country that deserves our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2018, the UAE arrested Matthew Hedges, a British citizen and doctoral student, and denied him access to legal counsel for 5 months. They sentenced him to life in prison for spying charges based on a confession that was obtained in an undisclosed location. They were ultimately forced to pardon him after international outrage. Is this the kind of country that we can trust with our most sophisticated weaponry? The fact that the UAE is willing to buy this technology is not in and of itself justification for the sale. This is the time to carefully study the situation in the region and to consider the effects of accelerating the Middle Eastern arms race in the short-term and in the long-term. This is why our government shouldn't be rushing into approving this sale; yet our government is moving at warp speed to approve this sale. It is as if we intentionally don't want to consider all of these issues. The most frequently cited argument in favor of this sale is that the UAE has taken encouraging steps in the last few months. They have normalized relations with Israel, facilitated civilian travel, and more. Great. I am all-in for that. We should be encouraging peaceful relations between countries. I support those efforts. But it is not clear that dropping advanced military technology into the region is, in fact, encouraging peaceful relations, given how these weapons have been used in recent times. The UAE spent years bombing Yemen as part of a coalition with Saudi Arabia to stop the Houthis. This bombing campaign was undisciplined and sloppy. Civilians, residents, and other nonmilitary targets were often destroyed. The U.N. reports approximately 7,000 civilians killed in Yemen and over 10,000 wounded. The Saudi-UAE coalition helped create a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Amid collapsing public services, the largest cholera epidemic on record has affected at least 2 million people--probably more--and killed almost 4,000. A lot of this is to be blamed on the civil war that had been perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. At the height of the destruction, a Yemeni child would die of starvation every 10 minutes. More than 50,000 children have been lost to starvation. I have argued for years that the United States should play no role in worsening the crisis via an arms pipeline to the coalition that perpetuates this war. American technology helped facilitate this crisis and should be a real concern about sending more American bombs and fighter planes into this region. If they weren't used wisely in the most recent years in the Yemeni war, will they be used differently in the future? Can we trust the people who were part of a bombing campaign of civilians in Yemen to do an act more wisely with weapons in the future? Let's also not forget that a media investigation found that weapons that we sent to the coalition--U.S. weapons that were sent to the Saudi-UAE coalition--were lost, and, in some cases, handed over to terrorists. That is right. Military equipment from the United States was sent to the UAE, but it wound up in the hands of terrorists. The Saudi-UAE coalition reportedly used U.S. weapons as currency to win the approval of militias inside Yemen. To be clear, these activities are against the terms of sale. We told them: You can't give away our weapons. You can't use our weapons to purchase the support of Sunni extremists in Yemen. But they did. This should give us cause for concern. This should make us say: Whoa. Let's stop, and let's pause before we send more weapons into this war. Not only that, but Iranian proxies captured some of these weapons, and, predictably, pointed them back at the Saudi-UAE coalition. Guns, missiles, and vehicles ended up in the hands of terrorists--weapons that we put on the ground in the Middle East. The same investigation found Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, MRAPs, in the hands of Sunni allies of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. But guess who some of these Sunni allies were. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. We are talking about the remnants of al-Qaida in Yemen were getting weapons that we were giving to the UAE in Saudi Arabia. Does this sound like the kind of behavior we should reward with more weapons? One of the MRAPs still had the export label on it indicating that it had been sent from Beaumont, TX, to the UAE before ultimately getting illegally transferred to extremists in Yemen. Is this the kind of behavior we should reward with more of our sophisticated technology? The serial number on another MRAP in the possession of the Iranian-backed Houthis was traced back to the 2014 sale of U.S. MRAPs to the UAE. So the UAE not only was trading our weapons for support among Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida-affiliated extremists in Yemen, but they also were having their equipment taken by the Houthis. So on both sides of the war in Yemen, we had U.S. weapons. Is it a good idea to flood the Middle East with more of our weapons? Is it a good idea to keep sending weapons that wind up in the hands of people who don't have our best interests at heart? Now, people say: Well, the UAE is doing better. They have stepped back from the coalition. They are not, you know, fighting as vigorously in the UAE. But there still are reports that UAE is still involved in the civil war in Yemen and that they are still engaged. The UAE has a very conflicted record on human rights. I mentioned a few of those who have been in prison for 10 years to life for speech--for speech against the government or even just speech the government doesn't like. But flogging is also used as a form of punishment. There is no true freedom of speech or press in the UAE. Is this the kind of country we should give our most sophisticated technology to Activists have been held in secret detention centers in the UAE. Electric shocks have been used as a form of punishment in the UAE. Social media statements against the government are criminalized. You can be put in prison for text messages, and people have been put in prison and/or deported for text messages. The government has used mass trials against dissidents. Statements of support for Qatar were made illegal during the region's diplomatic standoff. Criticisms of government officials were made illegal by decree. This is not an open society; this is not a democracy; and this is decidedly not a country that we should be giving our most sophisticated weaponry to. Do we believe these arms sales will encourage or discourage bad behavior from the UAE? We are clearly communicating to the UAE that human rights take a backseat to arms sales. Part of the consideration for these arms sales is the recent developments from the UAE--most prominently, the UAE's normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham accords. It is a positive development, without a doubt. I am all in favor of it. I am all in favor of trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of Israel trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of good diplomatic relations, but you can also have diplomatic relations without flooding the region with our most sophisticated armaments. Outwardly, we are told by all involved that the F-35s are not a condition for the Abraham accords, but if you ask whether it is a good idea to send some of our most advanced weaponry to the UAE, we are nonetheless told, if we don't, it might jeopardize the accords. Well, which is it? They are either part of the accords or they are not. I, frankly, think, if the weapons were not to go, that the advantages to Israel-UAE having diplomatic relations in trade are so great that they will continue. The assurance right now is that we will guarantee what is called Israel's qualitative military edge in the region, even after the sale of F-35s and Reaper drones to the UAE. So the message to Israel is: Yes, we are giving the same advanced fighter jets to the UAE, but we will give you even better jets in the future. All I can say is, that is a big maybe. And people who accept, on the face of that, that, oh, yes, we are going to guarantee something, but we are giving this same equipment to people who have been on the other side of virtually every other war in the Middle East, I think, is a hopeful promise but not necessarily a guarantee. The easiest way, if you favor protecting Israel's QME, or military edge, is to stop sending military assets to other countries in the region. We are competing with ourselves right now. We give advanced weaponry to Israel, and then we say we are going to keep your advantage. But then we give the advanced weaponry to the UAE, and so Israel comes back and says we need more. Then we give more to them, and the Saudis want more. And then once we give the weapons to the Saudis, Israel wants more. It is a never-ending arms race between the so-called countries that are actually getting along, not to mention the arms race between those who are opposed to Iran in the region. The easiest way to protect the qualitative military edge of Israel is to quit sending more advanced weaponry into the region. We have committed to protecting Israel's QME in response to these sales, but we continue to obligate ourselves to increasingly large sales to offset the large sales we have already approved to others, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. There is another aspect to the qualitative military edge that is rarely discussed. It is the QME that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms have over Iran. Saudi Arabia is the third biggest purchaser of weapons and the third biggest spender on military of anyone in the world now, but if you add Saudi Arabia's weapons to the Gulf sheikdoms' weaponry, you find that they spend eight times more on their military than Iran. So what kind of response would we imagine? We may not like what Iran does, but we should at least think about what they will do in response to what we do, and what in response to what the Saudis do and the UAE does and Israel does. Exacerbating the QME inevitably leads to pressure on Iran to further escalate the arms race and becomes a never-ending destructive cycle of more and more weapons. People say--and this administration has said--we want an agreement with Iran but not just a nuclear agreement. So we got out of the nuclear agreement. We want an agreement on conventional weapons. But how will that work? We asked Iran to limit their weapons, but we keep piling weapons on the other side? Do you think Iran is going to agree to limit their weapons if we keep piling more of our sophisticated weapons into the hands of the Saudis and into the hands of the UAE and others? There is great concerns with this sale, and rushing it through is a mistake. What happens if the F-35s are shot down? What if Russia or China is able to access our sensitive stealth technology? How will the need for contractors be handled in a secure fashion? Some supporters of Israel are very worried about this. The Zionist Organization of America, for example, has opposed the sale because it jeopardizes Israel's qualitative military edge. It makes the technologies on which Israel relies less secure. This statement from the Zionist Organization of America is quite clear: ``The security of both the U.S. and Israel is best served by preventing any other countries from acquiring this advanced aircraft.'' They couldn't be clearer. Even many in Israel were initially, and very vocally, opposed to this sale. Their Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, said absolutely it was a terrible idea. Their Minister of Settlements, same thing. I would urge my colleagues to consider the possible consequences of this sale. We should not accelerate an arms race in the Middle East; we should not jeopardize the security of our military technologies; and we should not reward a decade-plus of undesirable behavior by the UAE. I urge a vote in support of these resolutions of disapproval. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 78, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7313 | null | 1,836 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose another massive infusion of arms into the volatile Middle East. Someone must ask the question: Can a lasting peace be purchased with more weapons? Will selling sophisticated fighter jets and weaponized drones bring more stability to the Middle East? Is it wise to pour fuel on the fire that burns in the Middle East? The Senate today is debating with these joint resolutions whether to disapprove of the announced sale of 50 F-35s and 18 Reaper Drones to the United Arab Emirates, a country that has recently taken encouraging steps specifically toward Israel, but with an overall record that should give concern. The primary questions we should be asking ourselves are: To what ends has the UAE deployed its military and its military technology in recent years? Does the UAE have a record that we can trust? What military behavior are we encouraging and rewarding with this sale? Will the U.S. bear responsibility if the UAE misuses these incredibly sophisticated weapons? The answers to these questions are far from clear. In fact, the UAE's record should give us pause. The UAE is not a democracy. Their human rights record is mixed, and their military activities in the region, as a one-time member of the Saudi coalition, contributed to the bloodshed and devastation in Yemen. On human rights, let's look at some recent reported examples. In 2017, Ahmed Monsoor, a human rights activist, was given a 10-year prison sentence based on his speech. Specifically, he was charged for posting ``false information that harms national unity'' on social media. The charges against him were based on a call for the release of another activist who had been put in prison for political speech. Is this the kind of democracy or lack of democracy and lack of speech that should be rewarded with our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2017, the UAE government also handed down a 10-year sentence to Nasser bin-Ghaith, an economist, for his criticism of the UAE and Egyptian Governments. Is this the kind of country that deserves our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2018, the UAE arrested Matthew Hedges, a British citizen and doctoral student, and denied him access to legal counsel for 5 months. They sentenced him to life in prison for spying charges based on a confession that was obtained in an undisclosed location. They were ultimately forced to pardon him after international outrage. Is this the kind of country that we can trust with our most sophisticated weaponry? The fact that the UAE is willing to buy this technology is not in and of itself justification for the sale. This is the time to carefully study the situation in the region and to consider the effects of accelerating the Middle Eastern arms race in the short-term and in the long-term. This is why our government shouldn't be rushing into approving this sale; yet our government is moving at warp speed to approve this sale. It is as if we intentionally don't want to consider all of these issues. The most frequently cited argument in favor of this sale is that the UAE has taken encouraging steps in the last few months. They have normalized relations with Israel, facilitated civilian travel, and more. Great. I am all-in for that. We should be encouraging peaceful relations between countries. I support those efforts. But it is not clear that dropping advanced military technology into the region is, in fact, encouraging peaceful relations, given how these weapons have been used in recent times. The UAE spent years bombing Yemen as part of a coalition with Saudi Arabia to stop the Houthis. This bombing campaign was undisciplined and sloppy. Civilians, residents, and other nonmilitary targets were often destroyed. The U.N. reports approximately 7,000 civilians killed in Yemen and over 10,000 wounded. The Saudi-UAE coalition helped create a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Amid collapsing public services, the largest cholera epidemic on record has affected at least 2 million people--probably more--and killed almost 4,000. A lot of this is to be blamed on the civil war that had been perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. At the height of the destruction, a Yemeni child would die of starvation every 10 minutes. More than 50,000 children have been lost to starvation. I have argued for years that the United States should play no role in worsening the crisis via an arms pipeline to the coalition that perpetuates this war. American technology helped facilitate this crisis and should be a real concern about sending more American bombs and fighter planes into this region. If they weren't used wisely in the most recent years in the Yemeni war, will they be used differently in the future? Can we trust the people who were part of a bombing campaign of civilians in Yemen to do an act more wisely with weapons in the future? Let's also not forget that a media investigation found that weapons that we sent to the coalition--U.S. weapons that were sent to the Saudi-UAE coalition--were lost, and, in some cases, handed over to terrorists. That is right. Military equipment from the United States was sent to the UAE, but it wound up in the hands of terrorists. The Saudi-UAE coalition reportedly used U.S. weapons as currency to win the approval of militias inside Yemen. To be clear, these activities are against the terms of sale. We told them: You can't give away our weapons. You can't use our weapons to purchase the support of Sunni extremists in Yemen. But they did. This should give us cause for concern. This should make us say: Whoa. Let's stop, and let's pause before we send more weapons into this war. Not only that, but Iranian proxies captured some of these weapons, and, predictably, pointed them back at the Saudi-UAE coalition. Guns, missiles, and vehicles ended up in the hands of terrorists--weapons that we put on the ground in the Middle East. The same investigation found Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, MRAPs, in the hands of Sunni allies of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. But guess who some of these Sunni allies were. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. We are talking about the remnants of al-Qaida in Yemen were getting weapons that we were giving to the UAE in Saudi Arabia. Does this sound like the kind of behavior we should reward with more weapons? One of the MRAPs still had the export label on it indicating that it had been sent from Beaumont, TX, to the UAE before ultimately getting illegally transferred to extremists in Yemen. Is this the kind of behavior we should reward with more of our sophisticated technology? The serial number on another MRAP in the possession of the Iranian-backed Houthis was traced back to the 2014 sale of U.S. MRAPs to the UAE. So the UAE not only was trading our weapons for support among Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida-affiliated extremists in Yemen, but they also were having their equipment taken by the Houthis. So on both sides of the war in Yemen, we had U.S. weapons. Is it a good idea to flood the Middle East with more of our weapons? Is it a good idea to keep sending weapons that wind up in the hands of people who don't have our best interests at heart? Now, people say: Well, the UAE is doing better. They have stepped back from the coalition. They are not, you know, fighting as vigorously in the UAE. But there still are reports that UAE is still involved in the civil war in Yemen and that they are still engaged. The UAE has a very conflicted record on human rights. I mentioned a few of those who have been in prison for 10 years to life for speech--for speech against the government or even just speech the government doesn't like. But flogging is also used as a form of punishment. There is no true freedom of speech or press in the UAE. Is this the kind of country we should give our most sophisticated technology to Activists have been held in secret detention centers in the UAE. Electric shocks have been used as a form of punishment in the UAE. Social media statements against the government are criminalized. You can be put in prison for text messages, and people have been put in prison and/or deported for text messages. The government has used mass trials against dissidents. Statements of support for Qatar were made illegal during the region's diplomatic standoff. Criticisms of government officials were made illegal by decree. This is not an open society; this is not a democracy; and this is decidedly not a country that we should be giving our most sophisticated weaponry to. Do we believe these arms sales will encourage or discourage bad behavior from the UAE? We are clearly communicating to the UAE that human rights take a backseat to arms sales. Part of the consideration for these arms sales is the recent developments from the UAE--most prominently, the UAE's normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham accords. It is a positive development, without a doubt. I am all in favor of it. I am all in favor of trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of Israel trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of good diplomatic relations, but you can also have diplomatic relations without flooding the region with our most sophisticated armaments. Outwardly, we are told by all involved that the F-35s are not a condition for the Abraham accords, but if you ask whether it is a good idea to send some of our most advanced weaponry to the UAE, we are nonetheless told, if we don't, it might jeopardize the accords. Well, which is it? They are either part of the accords or they are not. I, frankly, think, if the weapons were not to go, that the advantages to Israel-UAE having diplomatic relations in trade are so great that they will continue. The assurance right now is that we will guarantee what is called Israel's qualitative military edge in the region, even after the sale of F-35s and Reaper drones to the UAE. So the message to Israel is: Yes, we are giving the same advanced fighter jets to the UAE, but we will give you even better jets in the future. All I can say is, that is a big maybe. And people who accept, on the face of that, that, oh, yes, we are going to guarantee something, but we are giving this same equipment to people who have been on the other side of virtually every other war in the Middle East, I think, is a hopeful promise but not necessarily a guarantee. The easiest way, if you favor protecting Israel's QME, or military edge, is to stop sending military assets to other countries in the region. We are competing with ourselves right now. We give advanced weaponry to Israel, and then we say we are going to keep your advantage. But then we give the advanced weaponry to the UAE, and so Israel comes back and says we need more. Then we give more to them, and the Saudis want more. And then once we give the weapons to the Saudis, Israel wants more. It is a never-ending arms race between the so-called countries that are actually getting along, not to mention the arms race between those who are opposed to Iran in the region. The easiest way to protect the qualitative military edge of Israel is to quit sending more advanced weaponry into the region. We have committed to protecting Israel's QME in response to these sales, but we continue to obligate ourselves to increasingly large sales to offset the large sales we have already approved to others, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. There is another aspect to the qualitative military edge that is rarely discussed. It is the QME that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms have over Iran. Saudi Arabia is the third biggest purchaser of weapons and the third biggest spender on military of anyone in the world now, but if you add Saudi Arabia's weapons to the Gulf sheikdoms' weaponry, you find that they spend eight times more on their military than Iran. So what kind of response would we imagine? We may not like what Iran does, but we should at least think about what they will do in response to what we do, and what in response to what the Saudis do and the UAE does and Israel does. Exacerbating the QME inevitably leads to pressure on Iran to further escalate the arms race and becomes a never-ending destructive cycle of more and more weapons. People say--and this administration has said--we want an agreement with Iran but not just a nuclear agreement. So we got out of the nuclear agreement. We want an agreement on conventional weapons. But how will that work? We asked Iran to limit their weapons, but we keep piling weapons on the other side? Do you think Iran is going to agree to limit their weapons if we keep piling more of our sophisticated weapons into the hands of the Saudis and into the hands of the UAE and others? There is great concerns with this sale, and rushing it through is a mistake. What happens if the F-35s are shot down? What if Russia or China is able to access our sensitive stealth technology? How will the need for contractors be handled in a secure fashion? Some supporters of Israel are very worried about this. The Zionist Organization of America, for example, has opposed the sale because it jeopardizes Israel's qualitative military edge. It makes the technologies on which Israel relies less secure. This statement from the Zionist Organization of America is quite clear: ``The security of both the U.S. and Israel is best served by preventing any other countries from acquiring this advanced aircraft.'' They couldn't be clearer. Even many in Israel were initially, and very vocally, opposed to this sale. Their Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, said absolutely it was a terrible idea. Their Minister of Settlements, same thing. I would urge my colleagues to consider the possible consequences of this sale. We should not accelerate an arms race in the Middle East; we should not jeopardize the security of our military technologies; and we should not reward a decade-plus of undesirable behavior by the UAE. I urge a vote in support of these resolutions of disapproval. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 78, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7313 | null | 1,837 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose another massive infusion of arms into the volatile Middle East. Someone must ask the question: Can a lasting peace be purchased with more weapons? Will selling sophisticated fighter jets and weaponized drones bring more stability to the Middle East? Is it wise to pour fuel on the fire that burns in the Middle East? The Senate today is debating with these joint resolutions whether to disapprove of the announced sale of 50 F-35s and 18 Reaper Drones to the United Arab Emirates, a country that has recently taken encouraging steps specifically toward Israel, but with an overall record that should give concern. The primary questions we should be asking ourselves are: To what ends has the UAE deployed its military and its military technology in recent years? Does the UAE have a record that we can trust? What military behavior are we encouraging and rewarding with this sale? Will the U.S. bear responsibility if the UAE misuses these incredibly sophisticated weapons? The answers to these questions are far from clear. In fact, the UAE's record should give us pause. The UAE is not a democracy. Their human rights record is mixed, and their military activities in the region, as a one-time member of the Saudi coalition, contributed to the bloodshed and devastation in Yemen. On human rights, let's look at some recent reported examples. In 2017, Ahmed Monsoor, a human rights activist, was given a 10-year prison sentence based on his speech. Specifically, he was charged for posting ``false information that harms national unity'' on social media. The charges against him were based on a call for the release of another activist who had been put in prison for political speech. Is this the kind of democracy or lack of democracy and lack of speech that should be rewarded with our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2017, the UAE government also handed down a 10-year sentence to Nasser bin-Ghaith, an economist, for his criticism of the UAE and Egyptian Governments. Is this the kind of country that deserves our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2018, the UAE arrested Matthew Hedges, a British citizen and doctoral student, and denied him access to legal counsel for 5 months. They sentenced him to life in prison for spying charges based on a confession that was obtained in an undisclosed location. They were ultimately forced to pardon him after international outrage. Is this the kind of country that we can trust with our most sophisticated weaponry? The fact that the UAE is willing to buy this technology is not in and of itself justification for the sale. This is the time to carefully study the situation in the region and to consider the effects of accelerating the Middle Eastern arms race in the short-term and in the long-term. This is why our government shouldn't be rushing into approving this sale; yet our government is moving at warp speed to approve this sale. It is as if we intentionally don't want to consider all of these issues. The most frequently cited argument in favor of this sale is that the UAE has taken encouraging steps in the last few months. They have normalized relations with Israel, facilitated civilian travel, and more. Great. I am all-in for that. We should be encouraging peaceful relations between countries. I support those efforts. But it is not clear that dropping advanced military technology into the region is, in fact, encouraging peaceful relations, given how these weapons have been used in recent times. The UAE spent years bombing Yemen as part of a coalition with Saudi Arabia to stop the Houthis. This bombing campaign was undisciplined and sloppy. Civilians, residents, and other nonmilitary targets were often destroyed. The U.N. reports approximately 7,000 civilians killed in Yemen and over 10,000 wounded. The Saudi-UAE coalition helped create a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Amid collapsing public services, the largest cholera epidemic on record has affected at least 2 million people--probably more--and killed almost 4,000. A lot of this is to be blamed on the civil war that had been perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. At the height of the destruction, a Yemeni child would die of starvation every 10 minutes. More than 50,000 children have been lost to starvation. I have argued for years that the United States should play no role in worsening the crisis via an arms pipeline to the coalition that perpetuates this war. American technology helped facilitate this crisis and should be a real concern about sending more American bombs and fighter planes into this region. If they weren't used wisely in the most recent years in the Yemeni war, will they be used differently in the future? Can we trust the people who were part of a bombing campaign of civilians in Yemen to do an act more wisely with weapons in the future? Let's also not forget that a media investigation found that weapons that we sent to the coalition--U.S. weapons that were sent to the Saudi-UAE coalition--were lost, and, in some cases, handed over to terrorists. That is right. Military equipment from the United States was sent to the UAE, but it wound up in the hands of terrorists. The Saudi-UAE coalition reportedly used U.S. weapons as currency to win the approval of militias inside Yemen. To be clear, these activities are against the terms of sale. We told them: You can't give away our weapons. You can't use our weapons to purchase the support of Sunni extremists in Yemen. But they did. This should give us cause for concern. This should make us say: Whoa. Let's stop, and let's pause before we send more weapons into this war. Not only that, but Iranian proxies captured some of these weapons, and, predictably, pointed them back at the Saudi-UAE coalition. Guns, missiles, and vehicles ended up in the hands of terrorists--weapons that we put on the ground in the Middle East. The same investigation found Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, MRAPs, in the hands of Sunni allies of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. But guess who some of these Sunni allies were. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. We are talking about the remnants of al-Qaida in Yemen were getting weapons that we were giving to the UAE in Saudi Arabia. Does this sound like the kind of behavior we should reward with more weapons? One of the MRAPs still had the export label on it indicating that it had been sent from Beaumont, TX, to the UAE before ultimately getting illegally transferred to extremists in Yemen. Is this the kind of behavior we should reward with more of our sophisticated technology? The serial number on another MRAP in the possession of the Iranian-backed Houthis was traced back to the 2014 sale of U.S. MRAPs to the UAE. So the UAE not only was trading our weapons for support among Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida-affiliated extremists in Yemen, but they also were having their equipment taken by the Houthis. So on both sides of the war in Yemen, we had U.S. weapons. Is it a good idea to flood the Middle East with more of our weapons? Is it a good idea to keep sending weapons that wind up in the hands of people who don't have our best interests at heart? Now, people say: Well, the UAE is doing better. They have stepped back from the coalition. They are not, you know, fighting as vigorously in the UAE. But there still are reports that UAE is still involved in the civil war in Yemen and that they are still engaged. The UAE has a very conflicted record on human rights. I mentioned a few of those who have been in prison for 10 years to life for speech--for speech against the government or even just speech the government doesn't like. But flogging is also used as a form of punishment. There is no true freedom of speech or press in the UAE. Is this the kind of country we should give our most sophisticated technology to Activists have been held in secret detention centers in the UAE. Electric shocks have been used as a form of punishment in the UAE. Social media statements against the government are criminalized. You can be put in prison for text messages, and people have been put in prison and/or deported for text messages. The government has used mass trials against dissidents. Statements of support for Qatar were made illegal during the region's diplomatic standoff. Criticisms of government officials were made illegal by decree. This is not an open society; this is not a democracy; and this is decidedly not a country that we should be giving our most sophisticated weaponry to. Do we believe these arms sales will encourage or discourage bad behavior from the UAE? We are clearly communicating to the UAE that human rights take a backseat to arms sales. Part of the consideration for these arms sales is the recent developments from the UAE--most prominently, the UAE's normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham accords. It is a positive development, without a doubt. I am all in favor of it. I am all in favor of trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of Israel trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of good diplomatic relations, but you can also have diplomatic relations without flooding the region with our most sophisticated armaments. Outwardly, we are told by all involved that the F-35s are not a condition for the Abraham accords, but if you ask whether it is a good idea to send some of our most advanced weaponry to the UAE, we are nonetheless told, if we don't, it might jeopardize the accords. Well, which is it? They are either part of the accords or they are not. I, frankly, think, if the weapons were not to go, that the advantages to Israel-UAE having diplomatic relations in trade are so great that they will continue. The assurance right now is that we will guarantee what is called Israel's qualitative military edge in the region, even after the sale of F-35s and Reaper drones to the UAE. So the message to Israel is: Yes, we are giving the same advanced fighter jets to the UAE, but we will give you even better jets in the future. All I can say is, that is a big maybe. And people who accept, on the face of that, that, oh, yes, we are going to guarantee something, but we are giving this same equipment to people who have been on the other side of virtually every other war in the Middle East, I think, is a hopeful promise but not necessarily a guarantee. The easiest way, if you favor protecting Israel's QME, or military edge, is to stop sending military assets to other countries in the region. We are competing with ourselves right now. We give advanced weaponry to Israel, and then we say we are going to keep your advantage. But then we give the advanced weaponry to the UAE, and so Israel comes back and says we need more. Then we give more to them, and the Saudis want more. And then once we give the weapons to the Saudis, Israel wants more. It is a never-ending arms race between the so-called countries that are actually getting along, not to mention the arms race between those who are opposed to Iran in the region. The easiest way to protect the qualitative military edge of Israel is to quit sending more advanced weaponry into the region. We have committed to protecting Israel's QME in response to these sales, but we continue to obligate ourselves to increasingly large sales to offset the large sales we have already approved to others, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. There is another aspect to the qualitative military edge that is rarely discussed. It is the QME that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms have over Iran. Saudi Arabia is the third biggest purchaser of weapons and the third biggest spender on military of anyone in the world now, but if you add Saudi Arabia's weapons to the Gulf sheikdoms' weaponry, you find that they spend eight times more on their military than Iran. So what kind of response would we imagine? We may not like what Iran does, but we should at least think about what they will do in response to what we do, and what in response to what the Saudis do and the UAE does and Israel does. Exacerbating the QME inevitably leads to pressure on Iran to further escalate the arms race and becomes a never-ending destructive cycle of more and more weapons. People say--and this administration has said--we want an agreement with Iran but not just a nuclear agreement. So we got out of the nuclear agreement. We want an agreement on conventional weapons. But how will that work? We asked Iran to limit their weapons, but we keep piling weapons on the other side? Do you think Iran is going to agree to limit their weapons if we keep piling more of our sophisticated weapons into the hands of the Saudis and into the hands of the UAE and others? There is great concerns with this sale, and rushing it through is a mistake. What happens if the F-35s are shot down? What if Russia or China is able to access our sensitive stealth technology? How will the need for contractors be handled in a secure fashion? Some supporters of Israel are very worried about this. The Zionist Organization of America, for example, has opposed the sale because it jeopardizes Israel's qualitative military edge. It makes the technologies on which Israel relies less secure. This statement from the Zionist Organization of America is quite clear: ``The security of both the U.S. and Israel is best served by preventing any other countries from acquiring this advanced aircraft.'' They couldn't be clearer. Even many in Israel were initially, and very vocally, opposed to this sale. Their Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, said absolutely it was a terrible idea. Their Minister of Settlements, same thing. I would urge my colleagues to consider the possible consequences of this sale. We should not accelerate an arms race in the Middle East; we should not jeopardize the security of our military technologies; and we should not reward a decade-plus of undesirable behavior by the UAE. I urge a vote in support of these resolutions of disapproval. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 78, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7313 | null | 1,838 |
formal | Zionist | null | antisemitic | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose another massive infusion of arms into the volatile Middle East. Someone must ask the question: Can a lasting peace be purchased with more weapons? Will selling sophisticated fighter jets and weaponized drones bring more stability to the Middle East? Is it wise to pour fuel on the fire that burns in the Middle East? The Senate today is debating with these joint resolutions whether to disapprove of the announced sale of 50 F-35s and 18 Reaper Drones to the United Arab Emirates, a country that has recently taken encouraging steps specifically toward Israel, but with an overall record that should give concern. The primary questions we should be asking ourselves are: To what ends has the UAE deployed its military and its military technology in recent years? Does the UAE have a record that we can trust? What military behavior are we encouraging and rewarding with this sale? Will the U.S. bear responsibility if the UAE misuses these incredibly sophisticated weapons? The answers to these questions are far from clear. In fact, the UAE's record should give us pause. The UAE is not a democracy. Their human rights record is mixed, and their military activities in the region, as a one-time member of the Saudi coalition, contributed to the bloodshed and devastation in Yemen. On human rights, let's look at some recent reported examples. In 2017, Ahmed Monsoor, a human rights activist, was given a 10-year prison sentence based on his speech. Specifically, he was charged for posting ``false information that harms national unity'' on social media. The charges against him were based on a call for the release of another activist who had been put in prison for political speech. Is this the kind of democracy or lack of democracy and lack of speech that should be rewarded with our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2017, the UAE government also handed down a 10-year sentence to Nasser bin-Ghaith, an economist, for his criticism of the UAE and Egyptian Governments. Is this the kind of country that deserves our most sophisticated weaponry? In 2018, the UAE arrested Matthew Hedges, a British citizen and doctoral student, and denied him access to legal counsel for 5 months. They sentenced him to life in prison for spying charges based on a confession that was obtained in an undisclosed location. They were ultimately forced to pardon him after international outrage. Is this the kind of country that we can trust with our most sophisticated weaponry? The fact that the UAE is willing to buy this technology is not in and of itself justification for the sale. This is the time to carefully study the situation in the region and to consider the effects of accelerating the Middle Eastern arms race in the short-term and in the long-term. This is why our government shouldn't be rushing into approving this sale; yet our government is moving at warp speed to approve this sale. It is as if we intentionally don't want to consider all of these issues. The most frequently cited argument in favor of this sale is that the UAE has taken encouraging steps in the last few months. They have normalized relations with Israel, facilitated civilian travel, and more. Great. I am all-in for that. We should be encouraging peaceful relations between countries. I support those efforts. But it is not clear that dropping advanced military technology into the region is, in fact, encouraging peaceful relations, given how these weapons have been used in recent times. The UAE spent years bombing Yemen as part of a coalition with Saudi Arabia to stop the Houthis. This bombing campaign was undisciplined and sloppy. Civilians, residents, and other nonmilitary targets were often destroyed. The U.N. reports approximately 7,000 civilians killed in Yemen and over 10,000 wounded. The Saudi-UAE coalition helped create a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Amid collapsing public services, the largest cholera epidemic on record has affected at least 2 million people--probably more--and killed almost 4,000. A lot of this is to be blamed on the civil war that had been perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. At the height of the destruction, a Yemeni child would die of starvation every 10 minutes. More than 50,000 children have been lost to starvation. I have argued for years that the United States should play no role in worsening the crisis via an arms pipeline to the coalition that perpetuates this war. American technology helped facilitate this crisis and should be a real concern about sending more American bombs and fighter planes into this region. If they weren't used wisely in the most recent years in the Yemeni war, will they be used differently in the future? Can we trust the people who were part of a bombing campaign of civilians in Yemen to do an act more wisely with weapons in the future? Let's also not forget that a media investigation found that weapons that we sent to the coalition--U.S. weapons that were sent to the Saudi-UAE coalition--were lost, and, in some cases, handed over to terrorists. That is right. Military equipment from the United States was sent to the UAE, but it wound up in the hands of terrorists. The Saudi-UAE coalition reportedly used U.S. weapons as currency to win the approval of militias inside Yemen. To be clear, these activities are against the terms of sale. We told them: You can't give away our weapons. You can't use our weapons to purchase the support of Sunni extremists in Yemen. But they did. This should give us cause for concern. This should make us say: Whoa. Let's stop, and let's pause before we send more weapons into this war. Not only that, but Iranian proxies captured some of these weapons, and, predictably, pointed them back at the Saudi-UAE coalition. Guns, missiles, and vehicles ended up in the hands of terrorists--weapons that we put on the ground in the Middle East. The same investigation found Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, MRAPs, in the hands of Sunni allies of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. But guess who some of these Sunni allies were. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. We are talking about the remnants of al-Qaida in Yemen were getting weapons that we were giving to the UAE in Saudi Arabia. Does this sound like the kind of behavior we should reward with more weapons? One of the MRAPs still had the export label on it indicating that it had been sent from Beaumont, TX, to the UAE before ultimately getting illegally transferred to extremists in Yemen. Is this the kind of behavior we should reward with more of our sophisticated technology? The serial number on another MRAP in the possession of the Iranian-backed Houthis was traced back to the 2014 sale of U.S. MRAPs to the UAE. So the UAE not only was trading our weapons for support among Sunni extremists, including al-Qaida-affiliated extremists in Yemen, but they also were having their equipment taken by the Houthis. So on both sides of the war in Yemen, we had U.S. weapons. Is it a good idea to flood the Middle East with more of our weapons? Is it a good idea to keep sending weapons that wind up in the hands of people who don't have our best interests at heart? Now, people say: Well, the UAE is doing better. They have stepped back from the coalition. They are not, you know, fighting as vigorously in the UAE. But there still are reports that UAE is still involved in the civil war in Yemen and that they are still engaged. The UAE has a very conflicted record on human rights. I mentioned a few of those who have been in prison for 10 years to life for speech--for speech against the government or even just speech the government doesn't like. But flogging is also used as a form of punishment. There is no true freedom of speech or press in the UAE. Is this the kind of country we should give our most sophisticated technology to Activists have been held in secret detention centers in the UAE. Electric shocks have been used as a form of punishment in the UAE. Social media statements against the government are criminalized. You can be put in prison for text messages, and people have been put in prison and/or deported for text messages. The government has used mass trials against dissidents. Statements of support for Qatar were made illegal during the region's diplomatic standoff. Criticisms of government officials were made illegal by decree. This is not an open society; this is not a democracy; and this is decidedly not a country that we should be giving our most sophisticated weaponry to. Do we believe these arms sales will encourage or discourage bad behavior from the UAE? We are clearly communicating to the UAE that human rights take a backseat to arms sales. Part of the consideration for these arms sales is the recent developments from the UAE--most prominently, the UAE's normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham accords. It is a positive development, without a doubt. I am all in favor of it. I am all in favor of trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of Israel trading with the UAE. I am all in favor of good diplomatic relations, but you can also have diplomatic relations without flooding the region with our most sophisticated armaments. Outwardly, we are told by all involved that the F-35s are not a condition for the Abraham accords, but if you ask whether it is a good idea to send some of our most advanced weaponry to the UAE, we are nonetheless told, if we don't, it might jeopardize the accords. Well, which is it? They are either part of the accords or they are not. I, frankly, think, if the weapons were not to go, that the advantages to Israel-UAE having diplomatic relations in trade are so great that they will continue. The assurance right now is that we will guarantee what is called Israel's qualitative military edge in the region, even after the sale of F-35s and Reaper drones to the UAE. So the message to Israel is: Yes, we are giving the same advanced fighter jets to the UAE, but we will give you even better jets in the future. All I can say is, that is a big maybe. And people who accept, on the face of that, that, oh, yes, we are going to guarantee something, but we are giving this same equipment to people who have been on the other side of virtually every other war in the Middle East, I think, is a hopeful promise but not necessarily a guarantee. The easiest way, if you favor protecting Israel's QME, or military edge, is to stop sending military assets to other countries in the region. We are competing with ourselves right now. We give advanced weaponry to Israel, and then we say we are going to keep your advantage. But then we give the advanced weaponry to the UAE, and so Israel comes back and says we need more. Then we give more to them, and the Saudis want more. And then once we give the weapons to the Saudis, Israel wants more. It is a never-ending arms race between the so-called countries that are actually getting along, not to mention the arms race between those who are opposed to Iran in the region. The easiest way to protect the qualitative military edge of Israel is to quit sending more advanced weaponry into the region. We have committed to protecting Israel's QME in response to these sales, but we continue to obligate ourselves to increasingly large sales to offset the large sales we have already approved to others, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. There is another aspect to the qualitative military edge that is rarely discussed. It is the QME that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms have over Iran. Saudi Arabia is the third biggest purchaser of weapons and the third biggest spender on military of anyone in the world now, but if you add Saudi Arabia's weapons to the Gulf sheikdoms' weaponry, you find that they spend eight times more on their military than Iran. So what kind of response would we imagine? We may not like what Iran does, but we should at least think about what they will do in response to what we do, and what in response to what the Saudis do and the UAE does and Israel does. Exacerbating the QME inevitably leads to pressure on Iran to further escalate the arms race and becomes a never-ending destructive cycle of more and more weapons. People say--and this administration has said--we want an agreement with Iran but not just a nuclear agreement. So we got out of the nuclear agreement. We want an agreement on conventional weapons. But how will that work? We asked Iran to limit their weapons, but we keep piling weapons on the other side? Do you think Iran is going to agree to limit their weapons if we keep piling more of our sophisticated weapons into the hands of the Saudis and into the hands of the UAE and others? There is great concerns with this sale, and rushing it through is a mistake. What happens if the F-35s are shot down? What if Russia or China is able to access our sensitive stealth technology? How will the need for contractors be handled in a secure fashion? Some supporters of Israel are very worried about this. The Zionist Organization of America, for example, has opposed the sale because it jeopardizes Israel's qualitative military edge. It makes the technologies on which Israel relies less secure. This statement from the Zionist Organization of America is quite clear: ``The security of both the U.S. and Israel is best served by preventing any other countries from acquiring this advanced aircraft.'' They couldn't be clearer. Even many in Israel were initially, and very vocally, opposed to this sale. Their Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, said absolutely it was a terrible idea. Their Minister of Settlements, same thing. I would urge my colleagues to consider the possible consequences of this sale. We should not accelerate an arms race in the Middle East; we should not jeopardize the security of our military technologies; and we should not reward a decade-plus of undesirable behavior by the UAE. I urge a vote in support of these resolutions of disapproval. Madam President, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 78, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed military sale to the United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and services. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7313 | null | 1,839 |
formal | job creator | null | conservative | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, yesterday, the Provide Accurate Information Directly, PAID Act took a pivotal step closer to becoming law. Once enacted, this vital legislation, which I had the privilege of coauthoring with Senator Cardin, will save tens of millions of taxpayer dollars through targeted and commonsense updates to the Medicare secondary payer, MSP, statute, which Congress first codified four decades ago. The PAID Act aims to ensure that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, in coordinating claims related to Medicare Advantage MA, or Medicare Part D plans, can provide the information needed for settling parties to resolve claims-fairly and efficiently. In short, this bill is a boon for seniors, Main Street job creators, and the American taxpayer. As this bill approaches the legislative finish line, I would like to thank Chairman Grassley for his invaluable support in working with my office, as well as with our Democratic counterparts and with CMS, to bolster, refine, and identify legislative avenues for our proposal. I would also like to thank Senator Cardin for his partnership in co-leading this legislation, along with Representatives Kind and Bilirakis, who introduced a companion bill in the House, which passed by voice vote yesterday. Together, I feel confident that we can see the PAID Act signed into law by the end of the year. Congress amended the MSP statute in 2007 to require parties to a dispute--known as primary plans--to report settlements, judgments, and awards to Medicare through so-called section 111 reports. This amendment allowed Medicare to-seek recovery from settling parties when Medicare paid for healthcare because other payment was not available or reasonably expected to be available. While this system has functioned well for the Medicare Fee-for-Service program, where CMS has the claims data needed for recovery, it has not worked successfully for the MA Part C and Part D programs, where CMS does not have the requisite Part C and Part D claims data and cannot recover for payments that have been made. To compound the problem, settling parties are often unable to identify the correct Part C or Part D plan to be able to coordinate benefits, should they choose to do so. This legislation closes that critical information by having CMS communicate the Part C and Part D plan identification to settling parties in response to a section 111 report. CMS has that data and can provide it. Congress recognizes that for the last 8 years, CMS has provided section 111 reports to the Part C and Part D Plans, and Congress expects that CMS will continue to do so after this legislation is enacted. Further, the existing MSP statute and regulations impose specific requirements on CMS, and on Part C and Part D plans, to pay for claims in some situations, to not pay for claims in other situations, and to pursue recovery of claims when appropriate. Nothing in this legislation is intended to change any of those obligations or requirements, and Congress expects Part C and Part D plans to continue to seek recovery of claims by timely notifying settling parties when a payment has been made that should be reimbursed, consistent with the CMS notice procedures. This legislation is only intended to provide more information to the settling parties so that they have the ability to coordinate with Part C and Part D plans earlier, if they so choose. Congress has afforded CMS 12 months to implement this law, and we urge the agency to move with all deliberate speed to both implement its own system changes and coordinate with primary plans throughout the implementation process. Regular communication and coordination will prove critical in ensuring that Primary Plans are aware of the data exchange requirements that CMS plans to implement and are prepared as quickly as possible to utilize the data CMS will be providing under this law. By involving all stakeholders throughout the implementation process, CMS can implement our intent that the needed plan identity information be available for parties to coordinate benefits as efficiently as possible. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7324 | null | 1,840 |
formal | job creators | null | conservative | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, yesterday, the Provide Accurate Information Directly, PAID Act took a pivotal step closer to becoming law. Once enacted, this vital legislation, which I had the privilege of coauthoring with Senator Cardin, will save tens of millions of taxpayer dollars through targeted and commonsense updates to the Medicare secondary payer, MSP, statute, which Congress first codified four decades ago. The PAID Act aims to ensure that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, in coordinating claims related to Medicare Advantage MA, or Medicare Part D plans, can provide the information needed for settling parties to resolve claims-fairly and efficiently. In short, this bill is a boon for seniors, Main Street job creators, and the American taxpayer. As this bill approaches the legislative finish line, I would like to thank Chairman Grassley for his invaluable support in working with my office, as well as with our Democratic counterparts and with CMS, to bolster, refine, and identify legislative avenues for our proposal. I would also like to thank Senator Cardin for his partnership in co-leading this legislation, along with Representatives Kind and Bilirakis, who introduced a companion bill in the House, which passed by voice vote yesterday. Together, I feel confident that we can see the PAID Act signed into law by the end of the year. Congress amended the MSP statute in 2007 to require parties to a dispute--known as primary plans--to report settlements, judgments, and awards to Medicare through so-called section 111 reports. This amendment allowed Medicare to-seek recovery from settling parties when Medicare paid for healthcare because other payment was not available or reasonably expected to be available. While this system has functioned well for the Medicare Fee-for-Service program, where CMS has the claims data needed for recovery, it has not worked successfully for the MA Part C and Part D programs, where CMS does not have the requisite Part C and Part D claims data and cannot recover for payments that have been made. To compound the problem, settling parties are often unable to identify the correct Part C or Part D plan to be able to coordinate benefits, should they choose to do so. This legislation closes that critical information by having CMS communicate the Part C and Part D plan identification to settling parties in response to a section 111 report. CMS has that data and can provide it. Congress recognizes that for the last 8 years, CMS has provided section 111 reports to the Part C and Part D Plans, and Congress expects that CMS will continue to do so after this legislation is enacted. Further, the existing MSP statute and regulations impose specific requirements on CMS, and on Part C and Part D plans, to pay for claims in some situations, to not pay for claims in other situations, and to pursue recovery of claims when appropriate. Nothing in this legislation is intended to change any of those obligations or requirements, and Congress expects Part C and Part D plans to continue to seek recovery of claims by timely notifying settling parties when a payment has been made that should be reimbursed, consistent with the CMS notice procedures. This legislation is only intended to provide more information to the settling parties so that they have the ability to coordinate with Part C and Part D plans earlier, if they so choose. Congress has afforded CMS 12 months to implement this law, and we urge the agency to move with all deliberate speed to both implement its own system changes and coordinate with primary plans throughout the implementation process. Regular communication and coordination will prove critical in ensuring that Primary Plans are aware of the data exchange requirements that CMS plans to implement and are prepared as quickly as possible to utilize the data CMS will be providing under this law. By involving all stakeholders throughout the implementation process, CMS can implement our intent that the needed plan identity information be available for parties to coordinate benefits as efficiently as possible. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7324 | null | 1,841 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At 12:15 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, without amendment: S. 134. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking. S. 578. An act to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. S. 1014. An act to establish the Route 66 Centennial Commission, and for other purposes. S. 2258. An act to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust whistleblowers. S. 2904. An act to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on the outputs that may be generated by generative adversarial networks, otherwise known as deepfakes, and other comparable techniques that may be developed in the future, and for other purposes. S. 3703. An act to amend the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act to improve the prevention of elder abuse and exploitation of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. S. 4902. An act to designate the United States courthouse located at 351 South West Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the ``Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse''. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 631. An act for the relief of Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and Vandana Kurdekar. H.R. 683. An act to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA''). H.R. 1375. An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for transparency of Medicare secondary payer reporting information, and for other purposes. H.R. 2477. An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a system to notify individuals approaching Medicare eligibility, to simplify and modernize the eligibility enrollment process, and for other purposes. H.R. 4225. An act for the relief of Maria Isabel Bueso Barrera, Alberto Bueso Mendoza, Karla Maria Barrera De Bueso, and Ana Lucia Bueso Barrera. H.R. 7146. An act for the relief of Victoria Galindo Lopez. H.R. 7572. An act for the relief of Median El-Moustrah. H.R. 8161. An act to authorize implementation grants to community-based nonprofits to operate one-stop reentry centers. H.R. 8235. An act to provide for the modernization of electronic case management systems, and for other purposes. H.R. 8354. An act to establish the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House has passed the following bill, with amendments, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: S. 1811. An act to make technical corrections to the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7325-2 | null | 1,842 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Brenda Torpy, who is retiring this month after decades of service at Champlain Housing Trust. Brenda is not only a leader and ally in the fight for affordable housing, she is a longtime friend. When I was elected mayor of Burlington, VT, in 1981, I knew I had a unique opportunity to change the way things were done, and to serve working families and others who had been left behind by past administrations. My vision was for a municipal government that worked for every one and increased fairness and equity so that all Burlington residents could get ahead. At the time, far too many residents were struggling to keep up with rising housing costs due to gentrification and development, and owning their own home--a hallmark of the American dream--felt like an impossible goal. I wanted to change that. My vision for housing in Burlington could never have become a reality without Brenda and her work to establish a community land trust in Vermont. Brenda served as the city's first housing director in the newly created Community and Economic Development Office--CEDO--a role in which she demonstrated remarkable talent and dedication. It was Brenda and her colleagues who proposed the idea of a community land trust, which was a novel idea at the time. Thanks to their work with the Institute for Community Economics and their successful engagement with the community, this innovative model for affordable housing came to the city of Burlington and was established as the Burlington Community Land Trust, now the Champlain Housing Trust. The trust did something truly transformative: Through shared equity, it gave low-income people access to homeownership that was never possible before. Because the land trust remains affordable in perpetuity, the homes are still affordable today and will remain so long into the future. From her role at CEDO, Brenda went on to play a pivotal role in the Champlain Housing Trust's growth and success. She served as the first board president and, in 1991, became the executive director. Nearly 30 years later, the Champlain Housing Trust is the world's largest community land trust, with 2,600 affordable homes, including 566 designated for shared equity ownership; more than 6,000 members; and nearly $300 million in assets. The Champlain Housing Trust has not only benefited Burlington area residents and Vermonters. Brenda has used her talent and dedication to assist countless communities around the country interested in starting their own programs, making the work of the trust a national and international model, now established in it at least 23 States and 8 countries. Additionally, as an active member of the Neighborworks Alliance of Vermont, Brenda partnered with other housing organizations to assist Vermonters all across our State. I am extremely pleased to see community land trusts serving people worldwide, and remain incredibly proud that the model was spearheaded in my hometown of Burlington, VT. While much work remains to achieve our shared goal of making affordable housing a human right, I am enormously grateful to Brenda for her career-long dedication to achieving this vision. With Brenda's retirement at the end of this year, we will lose an exceptional leader in the housing community, but I am confident that her contributions will not be forgotten. The Champlain Housing Trust and its portfolio represent an impressive legacy, but perhaps even more impressive is the enduring positive impact her work has had on the countless lives changed thanks to affordable housing. Because of Brenda, older Vermonters on fixed incomes are able to stay in their homes; New Americans and refugees can provide stability for their families as they adapted to a new culture and community; single parents can rely on a safe, consistent home in which to raise their children; and young homeowners can break the cycle of poverty by purchasing an asset that will grow in value over time. Quite simply, Vermont and Vermonters are better off today because of Brenda. Becoming executive director of the Trust the same year I arrived in Washington, it is no exaggeration to say Brenda lent her expertise to me generously throughout my time in Congress. There was never an instance when my staff and I could not rely on Brenda to provide expert insights on the housing challenges we still face, and to put a human face on what can seem like abstract and intractable problems. She also brought great energy and innovation to this work, and her bold thinking--one of the qualities that made her indispensable in my municipal administration--will also be sorely missed. I count Brenda among my closest allies in affordable housing, and I have greatly appreciated working alongside her for nearly four decades. She has been a tremendous colleague and friend. I wish her all the best in her well-deserved retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7325 | null | 1,843 |
formal | single parent | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Brenda Torpy, who is retiring this month after decades of service at Champlain Housing Trust. Brenda is not only a leader and ally in the fight for affordable housing, she is a longtime friend. When I was elected mayor of Burlington, VT, in 1981, I knew I had a unique opportunity to change the way things were done, and to serve working families and others who had been left behind by past administrations. My vision was for a municipal government that worked for every one and increased fairness and equity so that all Burlington residents could get ahead. At the time, far too many residents were struggling to keep up with rising housing costs due to gentrification and development, and owning their own home--a hallmark of the American dream--felt like an impossible goal. I wanted to change that. My vision for housing in Burlington could never have become a reality without Brenda and her work to establish a community land trust in Vermont. Brenda served as the city's first housing director in the newly created Community and Economic Development Office--CEDO--a role in which she demonstrated remarkable talent and dedication. It was Brenda and her colleagues who proposed the idea of a community land trust, which was a novel idea at the time. Thanks to their work with the Institute for Community Economics and their successful engagement with the community, this innovative model for affordable housing came to the city of Burlington and was established as the Burlington Community Land Trust, now the Champlain Housing Trust. The trust did something truly transformative: Through shared equity, it gave low-income people access to homeownership that was never possible before. Because the land trust remains affordable in perpetuity, the homes are still affordable today and will remain so long into the future. From her role at CEDO, Brenda went on to play a pivotal role in the Champlain Housing Trust's growth and success. She served as the first board president and, in 1991, became the executive director. Nearly 30 years later, the Champlain Housing Trust is the world's largest community land trust, with 2,600 affordable homes, including 566 designated for shared equity ownership; more than 6,000 members; and nearly $300 million in assets. The Champlain Housing Trust has not only benefited Burlington area residents and Vermonters. Brenda has used her talent and dedication to assist countless communities around the country interested in starting their own programs, making the work of the trust a national and international model, now established in it at least 23 States and 8 countries. Additionally, as an active member of the Neighborworks Alliance of Vermont, Brenda partnered with other housing organizations to assist Vermonters all across our State. I am extremely pleased to see community land trusts serving people worldwide, and remain incredibly proud that the model was spearheaded in my hometown of Burlington, VT. While much work remains to achieve our shared goal of making affordable housing a human right, I am enormously grateful to Brenda for her career-long dedication to achieving this vision. With Brenda's retirement at the end of this year, we will lose an exceptional leader in the housing community, but I am confident that her contributions will not be forgotten. The Champlain Housing Trust and its portfolio represent an impressive legacy, but perhaps even more impressive is the enduring positive impact her work has had on the countless lives changed thanks to affordable housing. Because of Brenda, older Vermonters on fixed incomes are able to stay in their homes; New Americans and refugees can provide stability for their families as they adapted to a new culture and community; single parents can rely on a safe, consistent home in which to raise their children; and young homeowners can break the cycle of poverty by purchasing an asset that will grow in value over time. Quite simply, Vermont and Vermonters are better off today because of Brenda. Becoming executive director of the Trust the same year I arrived in Washington, it is no exaggeration to say Brenda lent her expertise to me generously throughout my time in Congress. There was never an instance when my staff and I could not rely on Brenda to provide expert insights on the housing challenges we still face, and to put a human face on what can seem like abstract and intractable problems. She also brought great energy and innovation to this work, and her bold thinking--one of the qualities that made her indispensable in my municipal administration--will also be sorely missed. I count Brenda among my closest allies in affordable housing, and I have greatly appreciated working alongside her for nearly four decades. She has been a tremendous colleague and friend. I wish her all the best in her well-deserved retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7325 | null | 1,844 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Brenda Torpy, who is retiring this month after decades of service at Champlain Housing Trust. Brenda is not only a leader and ally in the fight for affordable housing, she is a longtime friend. When I was elected mayor of Burlington, VT, in 1981, I knew I had a unique opportunity to change the way things were done, and to serve working families and others who had been left behind by past administrations. My vision was for a municipal government that worked for every one and increased fairness and equity so that all Burlington residents could get ahead. At the time, far too many residents were struggling to keep up with rising housing costs due to gentrification and development, and owning their own home--a hallmark of the American dream--felt like an impossible goal. I wanted to change that. My vision for housing in Burlington could never have become a reality without Brenda and her work to establish a community land trust in Vermont. Brenda served as the city's first housing director in the newly created Community and Economic Development Office--CEDO--a role in which she demonstrated remarkable talent and dedication. It was Brenda and her colleagues who proposed the idea of a community land trust, which was a novel idea at the time. Thanks to their work with the Institute for Community Economics and their successful engagement with the community, this innovative model for affordable housing came to the city of Burlington and was established as the Burlington Community Land Trust, now the Champlain Housing Trust. The trust did something truly transformative: Through shared equity, it gave low-income people access to homeownership that was never possible before. Because the land trust remains affordable in perpetuity, the homes are still affordable today and will remain so long into the future. From her role at CEDO, Brenda went on to play a pivotal role in the Champlain Housing Trust's growth and success. She served as the first board president and, in 1991, became the executive director. Nearly 30 years later, the Champlain Housing Trust is the world's largest community land trust, with 2,600 affordable homes, including 566 designated for shared equity ownership; more than 6,000 members; and nearly $300 million in assets. The Champlain Housing Trust has not only benefited Burlington area residents and Vermonters. Brenda has used her talent and dedication to assist countless communities around the country interested in starting their own programs, making the work of the trust a national and international model, now established in it at least 23 States and 8 countries. Additionally, as an active member of the Neighborworks Alliance of Vermont, Brenda partnered with other housing organizations to assist Vermonters all across our State. I am extremely pleased to see community land trusts serving people worldwide, and remain incredibly proud that the model was spearheaded in my hometown of Burlington, VT. While much work remains to achieve our shared goal of making affordable housing a human right, I am enormously grateful to Brenda for her career-long dedication to achieving this vision. With Brenda's retirement at the end of this year, we will lose an exceptional leader in the housing community, but I am confident that her contributions will not be forgotten. The Champlain Housing Trust and its portfolio represent an impressive legacy, but perhaps even more impressive is the enduring positive impact her work has had on the countless lives changed thanks to affordable housing. Because of Brenda, older Vermonters on fixed incomes are able to stay in their homes; New Americans and refugees can provide stability for their families as they adapted to a new culture and community; single parents can rely on a safe, consistent home in which to raise their children; and young homeowners can break the cycle of poverty by purchasing an asset that will grow in value over time. Quite simply, Vermont and Vermonters are better off today because of Brenda. Becoming executive director of the Trust the same year I arrived in Washington, it is no exaggeration to say Brenda lent her expertise to me generously throughout my time in Congress. There was never an instance when my staff and I could not rely on Brenda to provide expert insights on the housing challenges we still face, and to put a human face on what can seem like abstract and intractable problems. She also brought great energy and innovation to this work, and her bold thinking--one of the qualities that made her indispensable in my municipal administration--will also be sorely missed. I count Brenda among my closest allies in affordable housing, and I have greatly appreciated working alongside her for nearly four decades. She has been a tremendous colleague and friend. I wish her all the best in her well-deserved retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7325 | null | 1,845 |
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-6069. A communication from the Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Position Limits for Derivatives'' (RIN3038-AD99) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-6070. A communication from the Secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Swap Clearing Requirement Exemptions'' (RIN3038-AE33) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-6071. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Assessing Contractor Implementation of Cybersecurity Requirements'' (RIN0750-AJ81) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 1, 2020; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-6072. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualified ABLE Programs'' ((RIN1545-BP10) (TD 9923)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Finance. EC-6073. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Transparency in Coverage'' ((RIN1545-BP32) (TD 9916)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 2, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-6074. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-6075. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on Council Resolution 23-350, ``Sense of the Council Opposing Implementation of Public Charge Rule Resolution of 2020''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7326-2 | null | 1,846 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 631. An act for the relief of Arpita Kurdekar, Girish Kurdekar, and Vandana Kurdekar; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 683. An act to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA'' ); to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 1375. An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for transparency of Medicare secondary payer reporting information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. H.R. 2477. An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a system to notify individuals approaching Medicare eligibility, to simplify and modernize the eligibility enrollment process, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. H.R. 4225. An act for the relief of Maria Isabel Bueso Barrera, Alberto Bueso Mendoza, Karla Maria Barrera De Bueso, and Ana Lucia Bueso Barrera; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 7146. An act for the relief of Victoria Galindo Lopez; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 7572. An act for the relief of Median El-Moustrah; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 8161. An act to authorize implementation grants to community-based nonprofits to operate one-stop reentry centers; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 8235. An act to provide for the modernization of electronic case management systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7326 | null | 1,847 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2695. Mr. THUNE (for Mr. Scott of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Murphy)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3451, to improve the health and safety of Americans living with food allergies and related disorders, including potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis, food protein- induced enterocolitis syndrome, and eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases, and for other purposes. SA 2696. Mr. INHOFE (for Mr. Moran (for himself and Mr. Tester)) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 7105, to provide flexibility for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in caring for homeless veterans during a covered public health emergency, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a retraining assistance program for unemployed veterans, and for other purposes. SA 2697. Mr. INHOFE (for Mr. Peters) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3418, to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to allow the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide capitalization grants to States to establish revolving funds to provide hazard mitigation assistance to reduce risks from disasters and natural hazards, and other related environmental harm | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-09-pt1-PgS7331 | null | 1,848 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar) | House | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgH7115 | null | 1,849 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 906) to improve the management of driftnet fishing, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgH7126 | null | 1,850 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Himes). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5040) to direct the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to study the effects of drone incursions on wildfire suppression, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Himes) | House | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgH7127 | null | 1,851 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1503) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding the list under section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. DINGELL | House | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgH7130-2 | null | 1,852 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5663) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to destroy counterfeit devices, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. DINGELL | House | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgH7131 | null | 1,853 |
formal | early life | null | antisemitic | Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1130) to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the health of children and help better understand and enhance awareness about unexpected sudden death in early life, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. DINGELL | House | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgH7132 | null | 1,854 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5983) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4150 Chicago Avenue in Riverside, California, as the ``Woodie Rucker-Hughes Post Office Building'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KELLY of Illinois | House | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgH7135-5 | null | 1,855 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on one final matter, it is my honor today to pay tribute to a truly exceptional U.S. Senator, someone who arrived in this body with a full head of steam and a determination to cram as much service as possible into every day he got to wake up and serve his neighbors who sent him here. Our good friend, Cory Gardner, the junior Senator from Colorado, has been a man on a mission from the day he arrived. He already knew the institution. He was already one of the highest energy high-achievers that anybody who knew him had ever met. So he got to work, and he spent 6 years delivering a dizzying list of accomplishments. If you have heard about Cory Gardner's early days, you know that his high-speed, can-do attitude is nothing new. Case in point, one evening, when Cory was a boy, he and his friends got tired of their hoop sessions ending at sundown because the public basketball court lacked sufficient lighting. The group of friends considered how to remedy this. Cory's dad happened to be a town councilman. So a little government relations took place right around the dinner table. Well, no Senator who Cory ever pressed for a vote will be surprised to hear that the lighting infrastructure was soon adjusted, and the kids could take their pickup games into prime time. So young Cory was no stranger to persistence or public service, but it was in high school that he scored an opportunity to taste a level beyond Yuma's local government. He won admission to the U.S. Senate Youth Program. It is a scholarship that brings promising students from around the country to these halls for a quick immersion experience. Teenaged Cory Gardner liked the looks of this place. He made a mental note. By the way, to this day, Cory, along with his fellow alumna, Senator Collins, continue to make sure that special experience is paid forward. It didn't take Cory long to come back and begin strolling these hallways for real. After earning honors at Colorado State and a law degree from CU Boulder, he wound up working for our former colleague Senator Wayne Allard--and rising quickly through the ranks. In short order, he developed a reputation as a highly effective advocate for Coloradans. In fact, he was so well liked, so effective, and so thoroughly the proud son of Yuma that folks started to wonder if it wasn't time for Cory to put his own name on a door somewhere. So it wasn't long before the men and women of Colorado's State House District 63 found out firsthand what happens when you hire Cory Gardner to fight on your behalf. You get results big time. Not much later, his neighbors then gave Cory a new assignment here in Congress. Again, Congressman Gardner didn't just meet the bar as one out of 435. He excelled as a powerful, energetic voice on the most consequential issues. He brought home one win after another when it really mattered. It didn't take long before another promotion came calling, and so, appropriately enough, the Senate's freshman class of 2014 included a new member from the land of ``14ers''--what Coloradans call their peaks higher than 14,000 feet. Cory was already accustomed to altitude. So here in this upper Chamber, Senator Gardner hit the ground sprinting. I believe he has authored 11 standalone bills that have been signed into law in just 6 years. Without Cory's tireless work and his travels to the four corners of Colorado and beyond, the biggest conservation bill in a generation--the Great American Outdoors Act--would not have become law. There has been his key role in the Supreme Court confirmation of fellow Coloradan Neil Gorsuch, his mission to move the Bureau of Land Management to Grand Junction, and, of course, the nuts-and-bolts constituent work that Cory and his staff are famous for mastering. This not-so-junior Senator has used Colorado values to improve Washington and Washington influence to advance his home State. He dived head first into his leadership role on the East Asia Subcommittee on Foreign Relations. His work with regional allies helped drive the Senate to approve meaningful sanctions against North Korea, and the impact of the Asia Reassurance Initiative should echo long after all of us here today have left this scene. The litany of Cory's work just simply does not end. There is the new, nationwide three-digit suicide prevention hotline. There is the fact that this freshman not only scrapped over a national defense issue with our late colleague Chairman John McCain--talk about fearlessness--but that he somehow emerged mostly unscathed and with a win on space launch vehicles to show for it. But, like I said, one of the best aspects of Cory's operation is his almost obsessive focus on looking out for his people--one family and one story at a time. That is why it is impossible to give a speech on Senator Gardner without working your way to another name, Don Stratton. When Don was first met with our colleague, the 95-year-old Navy veteran was living with his wife in Colorado Springs. But the story began 76 years earlier, when he was among the fortunate few sailors to survive the bombing of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor. At 19, Don had survived severe burns but insisted on returning to combat with the fleet. After the war, he raised a family and wrote a book about his experiences. But Don's request to Senator Gardner wasn't anything for himself. It concerned a comrade who had saved his life that day 79 years ago this very week. At risk to himself, a sailor named Joe George had literally thrown the lifeline that brought Don and five shipmates to safety. But Joe's lifesaving efforts had gone unrecognized before his death. For years, Don didn't even know who had saved him. So once he found out, Don Stratton made it his mission to ensure our Nation formalized our gratitude for his guardian angel. Let's just say that the Strattons picked the right State to retire in. Colorado's junior Senator was on the case. Cory and his staff waded through tangles of bureaucracy. They appealed decisions all the way to the Secretary of Defense. And you better believe they secured that Bronze Star for PO1 Joe George, with the ``V'' device for valor to boot. Don passed away earlier this year. By all accounts, he and his family had come to regard Senator Gardner not just as an incredible advocate but as a true friend. Now, in fairness, this same eagerness and almost maniacal problem-solvingcan also get Cory in the occasional pickle. I remember recently that just months after the Senator was sworn in, he and I were on a codel together in the Middle East. I think the itinerary was something like eight countries in 6 days. At one point, we were waiting to meet with a foreign leader. As everyone else was just waiting patiently in this grand palace, Cory spots what looks like a stray piece of paper lying on the floor. Earnestly thinking he should leave the place better than he found it, Cory bends over and picks up the trash--except, it wasn't trash. Just then, the Monarch rolls in with a color guard--a color guard that is looking anxiously for the floor marker that was supposed to indicate where to stop marching. Luckily, the only diplomatic fallout was a good laugh by all. Actually, good laughs tend to follow Cory in his wake. Our colleague finds humor in the ``everyday'' like few can and shares it freely. I understand one of his favorite stories concerns a chat in the well with yours truly and former Senator Orrin Hatch. Cory was filling me in on his efforts to legalize marijuana in States like his. Orrin comes by, and sensing an ally, I pulled him in. I said: Orrin, is this true? What the heck is going on out West? Without missing a beat, our friend from Utah, a member of the LDS Church, shook his head sadly and said: ``First, it was tea. Then, coffee. And now this!'' Cory's version of this story comes complete with his finest Hatch and McConnell impersonations. Believe me, he has the voices down pat. For 6 years, Coloradans have been represented by this remarkable person who lives and works with relentless focus and infectious joy: globe-trotting diplomacy, a thick stack of signature bills signed into law, and generational accomplishments that were only possible because he was here. Cory likes to say himself: ``Not bad for a boy from Yuma, CO!'' We know what he means, but I have to observe that Cory's roots and his accomplishments are not in conflict--quite the contrary. It is only because Cory Gardner is exactly who he is that he is able to do what he does. Cory, everyone knows darn well your transition is no ``retirement.'' This is a brief pause between great chapters. I bet Jaime will call it a victory if she, Alyson, Thatcher, and Caitlyn can just get you to sit still--just sit still--and stay home through the holidays. But we all know it will take about 5 minutes before you have found a dozen new ways to keep doing big things, winning victories on behalf of others, and paying forward the ways in which you have been blessed. Colorado and your country aren't finished with you yet, not by a long shot. So thank you for everything. We will miss you badly around here, but we can't wait to see what course you chart next. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgS7380-2 | null | 1,856 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and the senior Senator from Texas with regard to a commitment made between all of us here. This commitment is related to the [consideration] of H.R. 2420, National Museum of the American Latino Act, previously reported out of the Rules Committee on December 3, and championed by Senator Cornyn. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition. and Forestry and having spearheaded the effort to design and build the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, I appreciate the goal of this legislation, but also the challenges getting the effort across the goal line. H.R. 2420 has an honorable cause: to build a museum that focuses on the legacy of the Latino people, one that is embedded in the history of the United States. The purpose of the National Museum of the American Latino is to serve as the premier location for people to learn about Latino contributions to life, art, history, and culture in the United States. I support such an effort. However, I raise one issue with the legislation, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's historic main headquarters building is specified in the bill as a potential location for the museum. USDA has been headquartered at the location on the National Mall since 1868. The main building was renamed in 1995 in honor of one of the longest serving members of Congress, Jaime L. Whitten of Mississippi. I had the pleasure to serve with Chairman Whitten in the House. USDA provides leadership on issues related to food, agriculture, rural development, and nutrition. The work of the Department benefits residents in our rural communities and supports agriculture production that feeds hundreds of millions of Americans and others throughout theworld. The legacy of the Latino people is intertwined with the communities that USDA serves in rural and urban America. I appreciate the efforts of the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino. Having recently completed the decades-long endeavor to establish Ike's memorial, I am sympathetic to the desire to establish a tribute in our Nation's Capitol. It is not an easy process, and there will undoubtedly be challenges along the way. Attempting to relocate the historic headquarters of one of the largest Federal agencies which serves all Americans is a hurdle that can be avoided. So I encourage the board of trustees of the National Museum of the American Latino and the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution, who are responsible for choosing the site location of the museum, to work through their processes as they finalize a location. And as they do so, I encourage them to appreciate USDA's mission and constituency when they make hard decisions and consider the expense of relocating USDA. I am pleased that we have come to a compact with regard to the location for this museum, that we agree here to encourage the board of trustees and the board regents to break ground on a fresh location, rather than a historic site of a Department that has served and will continue to serve our Nation's farmers, ranchers, growers, and other rural stakeholders. I now yield to my friend, Mr. Blunt, the senior Senator from Missouri and chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, to offer his perspective. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROBERTS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgS7417-2 | null | 1,857 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | TRIBUTE TO MARTHA McSALLY Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in her memoir titled ``Dare to Fly'', Senator Martha McSally tells an especially inspiring story from her Air Force days as the first American woman to fly in combat. This one anecdote reveals the totality of her character. In September 2005, a routine mission in the skies over Afghanistan suddenly turned into an emergency when a team of U.S. Special Forces were trapped in a canyon and under hostile fire. She raced to the scene only to discover that virtually all of the high-tech electronics for her A-10 Thunderbolt's navigation and weapons systems had failed. She had a choice to make: Withdraw, wait for backup, and leave the troops in jeopardy, or continue the attack with her skill, determination, and courage replacing the malfunctioning technology. She made the choice that those of us who have had the honor of working with this great leader from Arizona have come to expect. The full title of Senator McSally's memoir is ``Dare to Fly: Simple Lessons in Never Giving Up.'' From 26 years in the U.S. Air Force, achieving the rank of full colonel and becoming not only the first woman to fly in combat but also the first to command a fighter squadron, to two terms in the House of Representatives, to her service in the Senate, she has done a lot in her remarkable life. Giving up is one thing she has never done. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator McSally on many issues, from increasing preventive care and treatment for breast cancer to promoting animal welfare. As a champion for the men and women who serve our country in uniform, she led the way in creating a nationwide Veterans Treatment Court Program to provide our heroes with treatment they need to recover from the invisible wounds of war. Senator McSally has been a strong advocate for Arizona seniors and a dedicated and involved member of the Aging Committee, of which I serve as chairman. Together, we worked to protect older adults from criminals who sought to rob them of their hard-earned savings and introduced two senior fraud bills: the Anti-Spoofing Penalties Modernization Act to combat unwanted robocalls and the Stamp Out Elder Abuse Act to support community efforts to prevent abuse, exploitation, and neglect. Senator McSally's memoir contains another powerful story. When she was just 12 years old, her father was stricken by illness and had not long to live. He called his young daughter to his bedside and said this to her: ``Make me proud.'' That is another mission this American hero has carried out fully on behalf of the people of Arizona and of our Nation. It makes me proud to have served with Senator Martha McSally, and I wish her all the best in the years to come. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgS7419-2 | null | 1,858 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 11:49 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1426. An act to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to address insufficient compensation of employees and other personnel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes. H.R. 1570. An act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive coinsurance under Medicare for colorectal cancer screening tests, regardless of whether therapeutic intervention is required during the screening, and for other purposes. H.R. 1966. An act to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to complete a study on barriers to participation in federally funded cancer clinical trials by populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in such trials. H.R. 3361. An act to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize hydroelectric production incentives and hydroelectric efficiency improvement incentives, and for other purposes. H.R. 3797. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Act to make marijuana accessible for use by qualified marijuana researchers for medical purposes, and for other purposes. H.R. 5541. An act to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to reauthorize programs to assist consenting Indian Tribes in meeting energy education, planning, and management needs, and for other purposes. H.R. 5758. An act to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to make technical corrections to the energy conservation standard for ceiling fans, and for other purposes. H.R. 7898. An act to amend the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to consider certain recognized security practices of covered entities and business associates when making certain determinations, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgS7421-4 | null | 1,859 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and placed on the calendar: H.R. 1426. An act to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to address insufficient compensation of employees and other personnel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes. H.R. 3361. An act to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize hydroelectric production incentives and hydroelectric efficiency improvement incentives, and for other purposes | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgS7421-6 | null | 1,860 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 900. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 900) entitled ``An Act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bozeman, Montana, as the `Travis W. Atkins Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'.'', do pass with an amendment. Motion to Concur | 2020-01-06 | Ms. MURKOWSKI | Senate | CREC-2020-12-10-pt1-PgS7431-2 | null | 1,861 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that said, we know the American people's eyes are trained on the Capitol for another reason as well. Struggling families, exhausted health workers, and anxious small business owners are waiting--waiting--for the Senate to do what I have tried to accomplish over and over for months: Pass a significant, targeted COVID-relief bill built on all the areas where bipartisan consensus already exists. We know what that common ground looks like: a new second round of the Paycheck Protection Program so hard-hit small businesses can keep paying their people, the necessary investments in distribution to get lifesaving vaccines out to our people, and an extension of some unemployment programsthat will otherwise expire in just a matter of days. Republicans have been crystal clear about the sort of urgent and unobjectionable relief we are ready to deliver. I even offered to temporarily set aside one of our side's major requests, commonsense legal protections--by the way, 6,500 lawsuits have already been filed--to set aside commonsense legal protections to aid the reopening if Democrats drop their own controversial outstanding demands. But day after day, the Democratic leader finds new reasons not to compromise, new ways to avoid taking yes for an answer. In what universe should emergency aid for small businesses be contingent--contingent--on massive bailouts for State governments with no linkage to actual needs? Democrats are acting like it is more important to supply the Governor of California with a special slush fund than to help restaurant workers in California keep their jobs. Oh, and, by the way, these demands for State and local government giveaways are blocking urgent aid for struggling families at a time when many States' tax revenues have largely gone up--up In November, California admitted their tax revenue for this fiscal year was running about 19 percent ahead of what they had predicted. The Governor said earlier this week that he foresees a tax windfall--windfall--not a horrible budget crunch, but a windfall of nearly $16 billion. State lawmakers are preparing to argue over where to put all this unexpected tax money. According to the L.A. Times, they are considering topping up the State's cash reserves. They aren't just getting by; they are putting more money away. Here is another headline from a few days back--a State the occupant of the Chair is familiar with--``Massachusetts tax revenue[s] eclipsed total for last November despite COVID-driven recession.'' This is another State where revenues are actually up over last year. Whatever future problems Democrats may think they see around the corner, it is preposterous to claim that these blue States that are bragging about their tax windfalls must receive another Federal handout right this instant, before working families can get a penny more. Small businesses need saving right now. Unemployed people need relief extended right now. Vaccine distribution networks need funding right now. None of that should be held hostage over intergovernmental bailouts for States that are currently raking in revenue faster than they can spend it. Yet the Speaker and the Democratic leader have persuaded their entire conference that nothing should pass unless the Governors of California and New York get to cut the line and jump in front of millions of Americans who are trying to figure out how to pay their bills each and every month. Then there is Democrats' apparently strong opposition to enacting any kind of legal protections to aid the reopening. Targeted, temporary liability reforms are a common feature of national emergencies or strange events, such as the Y2K mess and September 11. This is not some new concoction; it is what Congress has done in the past. But this time, Democrats say the trial lawyers' interests must come first. They are threatening to kill any compromise whatsoever unless Congress leaves small businesses, universities, and healthcare workers as sitting ducks--sitting ducks--for frivolous lawsuits. My colleagues across the aisle want to present this stance as some bold crusade against evil corporations? Well, for one thing, it is the big corporations who can afford the massive legal departments. Lawsuits are not exactly alien from the perspective of the Fortune 100. No, it is small business advocates who have been pleading with Congress to pass legal protection since last May. It has been college presidents and higher education experts who have sounded this alarm the whole time. About 7 in 10 small business owners said a second pandemic of lawsuits was a major concern. University administrators told us liability is ``a national problem requiring a national solution'' that could produce ``a chilling effect'' on American education if not addressed. But Democrats are threatening to walk away altogether if Republicans try to give these institutions what they need. So look, a legislator's true position lies in what they do, not what they say. What Republicans have done since July is make one attempt after another to generate a consensus package that can actually be signed into law. What Senate Democrats have done is recite an endless--endless--chain of changing stories about why nothing that anyone proposes is any good. If my friends actually oppose PPP funding, vaccine distribution money, or extending some expiring unemployment aid, let's hear why. But if they do not oppose these things, let's get them out the door. I have proposed setting aside both liability protections and State and local bailouts and making law where we can agree. Democrats have thus far declined, but at the same time, they are blocking an agreement on these issues. So unless something changes, they will get to explain to a restaurant owner that Democrats didn't let her get a second PPP loan to save her business because her Governor needed a special slush fund or explain to a laid-off worker that his relief program may expire completely because Democrats didn't feel it was urgent or explain to an older couple, who have hunkered down and survived this long year, that their vaccines will arrive later than necessary because Democrats wouldn't let us fund distribution. If my Democratic friends don't want to explain these inexplicable things, then they need to let us act now. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7433-9 | null | 1,862 |
formal | handout | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that said, we know the American people's eyes are trained on the Capitol for another reason as well. Struggling families, exhausted health workers, and anxious small business owners are waiting--waiting--for the Senate to do what I have tried to accomplish over and over for months: Pass a significant, targeted COVID-relief bill built on all the areas where bipartisan consensus already exists. We know what that common ground looks like: a new second round of the Paycheck Protection Program so hard-hit small businesses can keep paying their people, the necessary investments in distribution to get lifesaving vaccines out to our people, and an extension of some unemployment programsthat will otherwise expire in just a matter of days. Republicans have been crystal clear about the sort of urgent and unobjectionable relief we are ready to deliver. I even offered to temporarily set aside one of our side's major requests, commonsense legal protections--by the way, 6,500 lawsuits have already been filed--to set aside commonsense legal protections to aid the reopening if Democrats drop their own controversial outstanding demands. But day after day, the Democratic leader finds new reasons not to compromise, new ways to avoid taking yes for an answer. In what universe should emergency aid for small businesses be contingent--contingent--on massive bailouts for State governments with no linkage to actual needs? Democrats are acting like it is more important to supply the Governor of California with a special slush fund than to help restaurant workers in California keep their jobs. Oh, and, by the way, these demands for State and local government giveaways are blocking urgent aid for struggling families at a time when many States' tax revenues have largely gone up--up In November, California admitted their tax revenue for this fiscal year was running about 19 percent ahead of what they had predicted. The Governor said earlier this week that he foresees a tax windfall--windfall--not a horrible budget crunch, but a windfall of nearly $16 billion. State lawmakers are preparing to argue over where to put all this unexpected tax money. According to the L.A. Times, they are considering topping up the State's cash reserves. They aren't just getting by; they are putting more money away. Here is another headline from a few days back--a State the occupant of the Chair is familiar with--``Massachusetts tax revenue[s] eclipsed total for last November despite COVID-driven recession.'' This is another State where revenues are actually up over last year. Whatever future problems Democrats may think they see around the corner, it is preposterous to claim that these blue States that are bragging about their tax windfalls must receive another Federal handout right this instant, before working families can get a penny more. Small businesses need saving right now. Unemployed people need relief extended right now. Vaccine distribution networks need funding right now. None of that should be held hostage over intergovernmental bailouts for States that are currently raking in revenue faster than they can spend it. Yet the Speaker and the Democratic leader have persuaded their entire conference that nothing should pass unless the Governors of California and New York get to cut the line and jump in front of millions of Americans who are trying to figure out how to pay their bills each and every month. Then there is Democrats' apparently strong opposition to enacting any kind of legal protections to aid the reopening. Targeted, temporary liability reforms are a common feature of national emergencies or strange events, such as the Y2K mess and September 11. This is not some new concoction; it is what Congress has done in the past. But this time, Democrats say the trial lawyers' interests must come first. They are threatening to kill any compromise whatsoever unless Congress leaves small businesses, universities, and healthcare workers as sitting ducks--sitting ducks--for frivolous lawsuits. My colleagues across the aisle want to present this stance as some bold crusade against evil corporations? Well, for one thing, it is the big corporations who can afford the massive legal departments. Lawsuits are not exactly alien from the perspective of the Fortune 100. No, it is small business advocates who have been pleading with Congress to pass legal protection since last May. It has been college presidents and higher education experts who have sounded this alarm the whole time. About 7 in 10 small business owners said a second pandemic of lawsuits was a major concern. University administrators told us liability is ``a national problem requiring a national solution'' that could produce ``a chilling effect'' on American education if not addressed. But Democrats are threatening to walk away altogether if Republicans try to give these institutions what they need. So look, a legislator's true position lies in what they do, not what they say. What Republicans have done since July is make one attempt after another to generate a consensus package that can actually be signed into law. What Senate Democrats have done is recite an endless--endless--chain of changing stories about why nothing that anyone proposes is any good. If my friends actually oppose PPP funding, vaccine distribution money, or extending some expiring unemployment aid, let's hear why. But if they do not oppose these things, let's get them out the door. I have proposed setting aside both liability protections and State and local bailouts and making law where we can agree. Democrats have thus far declined, but at the same time, they are blocking an agreement on these issues. So unless something changes, they will get to explain to a restaurant owner that Democrats didn't let her get a second PPP loan to save her business because her Governor needed a special slush fund or explain to a laid-off worker that his relief program may expire completely because Democrats didn't feel it was urgent or explain to an older couple, who have hunkered down and survived this long year, that their vaccines will arrive later than necessary because Democrats wouldn't let us fund distribution. If my Democratic friends don't want to explain these inexplicable things, then they need to let us act now. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7433-9 | null | 1,863 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that said, we know the American people's eyes are trained on the Capitol for another reason as well. Struggling families, exhausted health workers, and anxious small business owners are waiting--waiting--for the Senate to do what I have tried to accomplish over and over for months: Pass a significant, targeted COVID-relief bill built on all the areas where bipartisan consensus already exists. We know what that common ground looks like: a new second round of the Paycheck Protection Program so hard-hit small businesses can keep paying their people, the necessary investments in distribution to get lifesaving vaccines out to our people, and an extension of some unemployment programsthat will otherwise expire in just a matter of days. Republicans have been crystal clear about the sort of urgent and unobjectionable relief we are ready to deliver. I even offered to temporarily set aside one of our side's major requests, commonsense legal protections--by the way, 6,500 lawsuits have already been filed--to set aside commonsense legal protections to aid the reopening if Democrats drop their own controversial outstanding demands. But day after day, the Democratic leader finds new reasons not to compromise, new ways to avoid taking yes for an answer. In what universe should emergency aid for small businesses be contingent--contingent--on massive bailouts for State governments with no linkage to actual needs? Democrats are acting like it is more important to supply the Governor of California with a special slush fund than to help restaurant workers in California keep their jobs. Oh, and, by the way, these demands for State and local government giveaways are blocking urgent aid for struggling families at a time when many States' tax revenues have largely gone up--up In November, California admitted their tax revenue for this fiscal year was running about 19 percent ahead of what they had predicted. The Governor said earlier this week that he foresees a tax windfall--windfall--not a horrible budget crunch, but a windfall of nearly $16 billion. State lawmakers are preparing to argue over where to put all this unexpected tax money. According to the L.A. Times, they are considering topping up the State's cash reserves. They aren't just getting by; they are putting more money away. Here is another headline from a few days back--a State the occupant of the Chair is familiar with--``Massachusetts tax revenue[s] eclipsed total for last November despite COVID-driven recession.'' This is another State where revenues are actually up over last year. Whatever future problems Democrats may think they see around the corner, it is preposterous to claim that these blue States that are bragging about their tax windfalls must receive another Federal handout right this instant, before working families can get a penny more. Small businesses need saving right now. Unemployed people need relief extended right now. Vaccine distribution networks need funding right now. None of that should be held hostage over intergovernmental bailouts for States that are currently raking in revenue faster than they can spend it. Yet the Speaker and the Democratic leader have persuaded their entire conference that nothing should pass unless the Governors of California and New York get to cut the line and jump in front of millions of Americans who are trying to figure out how to pay their bills each and every month. Then there is Democrats' apparently strong opposition to enacting any kind of legal protections to aid the reopening. Targeted, temporary liability reforms are a common feature of national emergencies or strange events, such as the Y2K mess and September 11. This is not some new concoction; it is what Congress has done in the past. But this time, Democrats say the trial lawyers' interests must come first. They are threatening to kill any compromise whatsoever unless Congress leaves small businesses, universities, and healthcare workers as sitting ducks--sitting ducks--for frivolous lawsuits. My colleagues across the aisle want to present this stance as some bold crusade against evil corporations? Well, for one thing, it is the big corporations who can afford the massive legal departments. Lawsuits are not exactly alien from the perspective of the Fortune 100. No, it is small business advocates who have been pleading with Congress to pass legal protection since last May. It has been college presidents and higher education experts who have sounded this alarm the whole time. About 7 in 10 small business owners said a second pandemic of lawsuits was a major concern. University administrators told us liability is ``a national problem requiring a national solution'' that could produce ``a chilling effect'' on American education if not addressed. But Democrats are threatening to walk away altogether if Republicans try to give these institutions what they need. So look, a legislator's true position lies in what they do, not what they say. What Republicans have done since July is make one attempt after another to generate a consensus package that can actually be signed into law. What Senate Democrats have done is recite an endless--endless--chain of changing stories about why nothing that anyone proposes is any good. If my friends actually oppose PPP funding, vaccine distribution money, or extending some expiring unemployment aid, let's hear why. But if they do not oppose these things, let's get them out the door. I have proposed setting aside both liability protections and State and local bailouts and making law where we can agree. Democrats have thus far declined, but at the same time, they are blocking an agreement on these issues. So unless something changes, they will get to explain to a restaurant owner that Democrats didn't let her get a second PPP loan to save her business because her Governor needed a special slush fund or explain to a laid-off worker that his relief program may expire completely because Democrats didn't feel it was urgent or explain to an older couple, who have hunkered down and survived this long year, that their vaccines will arrive later than necessary because Democrats wouldn't let us fund distribution. If my Democratic friends don't want to explain these inexplicable things, then they need to let us act now. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7433-9 | null | 1,864 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the CARES Act passed the Senate on March 27, 2020. It was a rare moment in bipartisanship--a legislative triumph that saved our country from disaster in the very early days of the pandemic. As you know, I sat and negotiated a great deal of that with Secretary of State Mnuchin. And we all agreed it did a lot of good--a lot of good. But, unfortunately, for the past 259 days, as the virus continued to spread--when we did the CARES Act, we thought, well, maybe COVID will be over by the summer. Everyone thought that, but obviously it wasn't. And so the virus has continued to spread. Thousands of small businesses have closed their doors for good. Tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs and livelihoods. As American families waited in 21st century bread lines, cars snaking for miles down American highways; as tens of millions of Americans fell behind on the rent and the mortgage and face eviction; as 15 million Americans got sick; and as 292,001 Americans died, the Senate Republican majority, led by the majority leader, made sure the Senate could not do anything of significance to help the American people. May, June, July, August--pause; we don't need to do anything, said the leader. Let's wait and see what happens. Democrats didn't say that. The leader did. Waited and waited and waited. Now it is December, and we still, because of the leader's intransigence, have nothing of significance to help the American people during the worst economic crisis in 75 years and the greatest public health crisis in a century. Why? Why can't we get together? Why can't there be the bipartisanship that Americans search for and yearn for? At a time of such great crisis, there is one reason why America's two major parties have not gotten together during the time of acute national emergency, and that is because the Republican leader has demanded a partisan poison pill--a sweeping corporate liability shield--be included in any legislation. Otherwise, he won't let it pass. It sounds like an exaggeration, but that is what the leader has said. ``We're not negotiating over liability protection,'' the leader said, on July 28. I'll be responsible for putting the final agreement on the floor. And as I said, it will have liability protection in it. We're not negotiating with the Democrats over that. That is the fact. That is the history. There is not equality here. Finally, yesterday, as the bipartisan group of Senators and House Members were closing in on a final agreement, what happened? Yesterday, the Republican leader's team told the other congressional leaders that the bipartisan group would be unable to satisfy Senate Republicans. Why? Because it might not grant the exact sweeping liability protections for corporations that Leader McConnell has demanded. It is an unconscionable position. No relief for the American people unless corporations receive blanket immunity from lawsuits. That particular poison pill that has foiled bipartisan agreement for more than 8 months is the nub of the problem. If we could just get past that, if the Republican leader would only back off maximalist demands on corporate immunity, we could get something done. I mean it. We could actually get something done. Now, I know the Republican leader will say: Wait a minute, Democrats have partisan demands of their own, like providing assistance to save State and local services. But to equate State and local aid--money for policemen and firefighters, busdrivers, sanitation workers--to complete corporate immunity is a false equivalence. We know the two policies are not equivalent. First of all, there is broad bipartisan support for State and local aid. It is not a Democratic demand. Many Republicans support it too. There are bipartisan bills on the floor of the Senate demanding $500 billion in aid for the States. There are Governors--Democrats and Republicans--sending letters to all of us saying we need money; we need help. But the leader's corporate immunity provision doesn't have the support of a Democrat. Not a single person voted for it. It is expressly partisan. There is not equivalence. I know the media likes to say, on the one hand, on the other. There is not equivalence here. One is helping people who desperately need help. The other is a partisan demand that has been around for a long time that simply does not get bipartisan support. State and local aid is a solution to a real and urgent problem. Corporate immunity from lawsuits is not. They are not equivalent. State and local budgets are deeply in the red. Since the beginning of the pandemic, State and municipalities have laid off 1.3 million public employees--firefighters, police, first responders, teachers. We are talking about jobs--jobs--in red States as well as blue States. The leader likes to cite one statistic about tax revenue in one blue State to argue that no State--no State deserves Federal aid, not Wyoming or Alaska, North Dakota, that have each seen sharp declines in tax revenue; not Florida or Nevada or Louisiana, that depend on tourism and face revenue declines of 10 percent or more. State and local aid is a real and urgent problem. It is not abstract. It is people, and it is workers. PPP that helps small businesses--one of its main rationales, an important one, something I agree with--prevents workers who work for small businesses from being laid off. What is the difference between a worker being laid off by a small business because they don't have funding or a worker being laid off from a State and local government because they don't have funding? There is no difference. There is no difference. The leader's corporate immunity provision, on the other hand, is a solution, ideological, in search of a problem. Almost a year into this pandemic--15 million Americans infected, 290,000 lives lost to COVID-19--there have been only 23 personal injury suits from exposure to the coronavirus--23 in the entire country, over the entire year. And that is why Senate Republicans can't reach a bipartisan agreement to help the unemployed, feed the hungry, fund a vaccine, or support our schools? Corporations that want protection from a few dozen lawsuits is equivalent to millions of workers from State and local governments being laid off? Give me a break. Again, there are a few States that don't need the help, but many more States do--many more. This is mind-boggling. The Republican leadership is blocking a solution for the entire country until they get a favor for corporations who don't even need it. The American people, all of us, are sick of this ridiculous gamesmanship by the majority leader. We need to come together. We need to get something done. The American people deserve an outcome. It is not going to happen if the Republican majority insists on getting 100 percent of its partisan demands I yield the floor. I, once again, thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7435-4 | null | 1,865 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the CARES Act passed the Senate on March 27, 2020. It was a rare moment in bipartisanship--a legislative triumph that saved our country from disaster in the very early days of the pandemic. As you know, I sat and negotiated a great deal of that with Secretary of State Mnuchin. And we all agreed it did a lot of good--a lot of good. But, unfortunately, for the past 259 days, as the virus continued to spread--when we did the CARES Act, we thought, well, maybe COVID will be over by the summer. Everyone thought that, but obviously it wasn't. And so the virus has continued to spread. Thousands of small businesses have closed their doors for good. Tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs and livelihoods. As American families waited in 21st century bread lines, cars snaking for miles down American highways; as tens of millions of Americans fell behind on the rent and the mortgage and face eviction; as 15 million Americans got sick; and as 292,001 Americans died, the Senate Republican majority, led by the majority leader, made sure the Senate could not do anything of significance to help the American people. May, June, July, August--pause; we don't need to do anything, said the leader. Let's wait and see what happens. Democrats didn't say that. The leader did. Waited and waited and waited. Now it is December, and we still, because of the leader's intransigence, have nothing of significance to help the American people during the worst economic crisis in 75 years and the greatest public health crisis in a century. Why? Why can't we get together? Why can't there be the bipartisanship that Americans search for and yearn for? At a time of such great crisis, there is one reason why America's two major parties have not gotten together during the time of acute national emergency, and that is because the Republican leader has demanded a partisan poison pill--a sweeping corporate liability shield--be included in any legislation. Otherwise, he won't let it pass. It sounds like an exaggeration, but that is what the leader has said. ``We're not negotiating over liability protection,'' the leader said, on July 28. I'll be responsible for putting the final agreement on the floor. And as I said, it will have liability protection in it. We're not negotiating with the Democrats over that. That is the fact. That is the history. There is not equality here. Finally, yesterday, as the bipartisan group of Senators and House Members were closing in on a final agreement, what happened? Yesterday, the Republican leader's team told the other congressional leaders that the bipartisan group would be unable to satisfy Senate Republicans. Why? Because it might not grant the exact sweeping liability protections for corporations that Leader McConnell has demanded. It is an unconscionable position. No relief for the American people unless corporations receive blanket immunity from lawsuits. That particular poison pill that has foiled bipartisan agreement for more than 8 months is the nub of the problem. If we could just get past that, if the Republican leader would only back off maximalist demands on corporate immunity, we could get something done. I mean it. We could actually get something done. Now, I know the Republican leader will say: Wait a minute, Democrats have partisan demands of their own, like providing assistance to save State and local services. But to equate State and local aid--money for policemen and firefighters, busdrivers, sanitation workers--to complete corporate immunity is a false equivalence. We know the two policies are not equivalent. First of all, there is broad bipartisan support for State and local aid. It is not a Democratic demand. Many Republicans support it too. There are bipartisan bills on the floor of the Senate demanding $500 billion in aid for the States. There are Governors--Democrats and Republicans--sending letters to all of us saying we need money; we need help. But the leader's corporate immunity provision doesn't have the support of a Democrat. Not a single person voted for it. It is expressly partisan. There is not equivalence. I know the media likes to say, on the one hand, on the other. There is not equivalence here. One is helping people who desperately need help. The other is a partisan demand that has been around for a long time that simply does not get bipartisan support. State and local aid is a solution to a real and urgent problem. Corporate immunity from lawsuits is not. They are not equivalent. State and local budgets are deeply in the red. Since the beginning of the pandemic, State and municipalities have laid off 1.3 million public employees--firefighters, police, first responders, teachers. We are talking about jobs--jobs--in red States as well as blue States. The leader likes to cite one statistic about tax revenue in one blue State to argue that no State--no State deserves Federal aid, not Wyoming or Alaska, North Dakota, that have each seen sharp declines in tax revenue; not Florida or Nevada or Louisiana, that depend on tourism and face revenue declines of 10 percent or more. State and local aid is a real and urgent problem. It is not abstract. It is people, and it is workers. PPP that helps small businesses--one of its main rationales, an important one, something I agree with--prevents workers who work for small businesses from being laid off. What is the difference between a worker being laid off by a small business because they don't have funding or a worker being laid off from a State and local government because they don't have funding? There is no difference. There is no difference. The leader's corporate immunity provision, on the other hand, is a solution, ideological, in search of a problem. Almost a year into this pandemic--15 million Americans infected, 290,000 lives lost to COVID-19--there have been only 23 personal injury suits from exposure to the coronavirus--23 in the entire country, over the entire year. And that is why Senate Republicans can't reach a bipartisan agreement to help the unemployed, feed the hungry, fund a vaccine, or support our schools? Corporations that want protection from a few dozen lawsuits is equivalent to millions of workers from State and local governments being laid off? Give me a break. Again, there are a few States that don't need the help, but many more States do--many more. This is mind-boggling. The Republican leadership is blocking a solution for the entire country until they get a favor for corporations who don't even need it. The American people, all of us, are sick of this ridiculous gamesmanship by the majority leader. We need to come together. We need to get something done. The American people deserve an outcome. It is not going to happen if the Republican majority insists on getting 100 percent of its partisan demands I yield the floor. I, once again, thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7435-4 | null | 1,866 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great man and Montanan. Donald Lee Clark was a soldier, husband, father, professor, author, and mentor who loved, lived, and learned for all of his 90 years. He tested positive for COVID-19 on November 28, 2020, and died 7 days later. At a time when it is easy to be a cynic, Clark was unusually optimistic, surrounding himself with family and friends who admired and loved him. Throughout his accomplished life in the Air Force, where he served our Nation as a colonel, Clark never lost sight of making time to enjoy the world or people around him. He earned a 3rd degree black belt in Judo from the Kodokan Judo College while stationed in Japan. He learned to scuba dive as an attache in the Soviet Union in hopes of diving in the world's deepest lake. He taught himself to ride a unicycle just for the fun of it and took up skiing in his 40s while living in New Hampshire as a research fellow at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He skied the Alps while serving as an action officer assigned to the joint staff in the Office of International Negotiations. He was born in Dallas, TX, to Victor and Sheppard Clark. Don is survived by his wife of 65 years Patricia Conway Clark, their two sons Brian and his wife Marie of Kalispell, Darren and his wife Myrna of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, and three grandsons Kellin Clark and his wife Lauren Fox of Washington, DC, and Ryan Clark and Kevin Clark of California. He was preceded in death by his older sister Delores. Don and his sister were raised in Dallas by their single mother Sheppard. He attended Southern Methodist University on theology and ROTC scholarships and graduated with a degree in sociology. He later earned his masters in political science from George Washington University while in the Air Force. He met and later married the love of his life Patricia Conway in 1955 at Perkins Chapel on the campus of Southern Methodist University. After graduating from SMU, Clark began his military service career, which included assignments around the U.S. and the world. During his military career, he served in the Strategic Air Command as a B29 navigator, Air Training Command, Security Service, and Intelligence. Most of his 23-year military career was focused on intelligence. He was a Soviet specialist for numerous U.S. delegations including the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Law of the Seas, and Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions. He retired from the Air Force as a colonel in 1974 and moved his family from DC to Bozeman to ski at Bridger Bowl and become the assistant to the president at Montana State University. Six years later, he became the director of international education where he also taught courses in political science. He later started MSU's International Education programs while teaching classes in international affairs. While at MSU, he wrote a weekly newspaper column for several Montana dailies, excerpts from which were sometimes broadcast over Voice of America. His writings also appeared in ``Skiing'' magazine, the Air University Review, the ``Alternative,'' and Defense Analysis. After 20 years of teaching at MSU, Clark retired again and moved with Patricia to Flathead Lake just outside of Bigfork, MT. In his retirement, Clark started writing fiction and published several novels intertwining his passion for politics, world affairs and the human condition. In his 70s, Clark also volunteered his time to numerous community groups. Clark joined CASA--Court Appointed Special Advocates--and became a key volunteer working with families and children in need. He served on the State advisory board for CASA and on the United Way and Red Cross advisory boards in Montana. Don was never a victim in life or in death, but his loss is his final teaching moment. Even as his mind was fading with Alzheimers, he maintained his positive attitude. He never failed to tell his family how proud he was, how much he loved them, and what a wonderful life he had lived. Don will be missed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7445-3 | null | 1,867 |
formal | single mother | null | racist | Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great man and Montanan. Donald Lee Clark was a soldier, husband, father, professor, author, and mentor who loved, lived, and learned for all of his 90 years. He tested positive for COVID-19 on November 28, 2020, and died 7 days later. At a time when it is easy to be a cynic, Clark was unusually optimistic, surrounding himself with family and friends who admired and loved him. Throughout his accomplished life in the Air Force, where he served our Nation as a colonel, Clark never lost sight of making time to enjoy the world or people around him. He earned a 3rd degree black belt in Judo from the Kodokan Judo College while stationed in Japan. He learned to scuba dive as an attache in the Soviet Union in hopes of diving in the world's deepest lake. He taught himself to ride a unicycle just for the fun of it and took up skiing in his 40s while living in New Hampshire as a research fellow at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He skied the Alps while serving as an action officer assigned to the joint staff in the Office of International Negotiations. He was born in Dallas, TX, to Victor and Sheppard Clark. Don is survived by his wife of 65 years Patricia Conway Clark, their two sons Brian and his wife Marie of Kalispell, Darren and his wife Myrna of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, and three grandsons Kellin Clark and his wife Lauren Fox of Washington, DC, and Ryan Clark and Kevin Clark of California. He was preceded in death by his older sister Delores. Don and his sister were raised in Dallas by their single mother Sheppard. He attended Southern Methodist University on theology and ROTC scholarships and graduated with a degree in sociology. He later earned his masters in political science from George Washington University while in the Air Force. He met and later married the love of his life Patricia Conway in 1955 at Perkins Chapel on the campus of Southern Methodist University. After graduating from SMU, Clark began his military service career, which included assignments around the U.S. and the world. During his military career, he served in the Strategic Air Command as a B29 navigator, Air Training Command, Security Service, and Intelligence. Most of his 23-year military career was focused on intelligence. He was a Soviet specialist for numerous U.S. delegations including the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Law of the Seas, and Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions. He retired from the Air Force as a colonel in 1974 and moved his family from DC to Bozeman to ski at Bridger Bowl and become the assistant to the president at Montana State University. Six years later, he became the director of international education where he also taught courses in political science. He later started MSU's International Education programs while teaching classes in international affairs. While at MSU, he wrote a weekly newspaper column for several Montana dailies, excerpts from which were sometimes broadcast over Voice of America. His writings also appeared in ``Skiing'' magazine, the Air University Review, the ``Alternative,'' and Defense Analysis. After 20 years of teaching at MSU, Clark retired again and moved with Patricia to Flathead Lake just outside of Bigfork, MT. In his retirement, Clark started writing fiction and published several novels intertwining his passion for politics, world affairs and the human condition. In his 70s, Clark also volunteered his time to numerous community groups. Clark joined CASA--Court Appointed Special Advocates--and became a key volunteer working with families and children in need. He served on the State advisory board for CASA and on the United Way and Red Cross advisory boards in Montana. Don was never a victim in life or in death, but his loss is his final teaching moment. Even as his mind was fading with Alzheimers, he maintained his positive attitude. He never failed to tell his family how proud he was, how much he loved them, and what a wonderful life he had lived. Don will be missed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7445-3 | null | 1,868 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 12:58 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, without amendment: S. 906. An act to improve the management of driftnet fishing. S. 3257. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 311 West Wisconsin Avenue in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, as the ``Elnar `Sarge' H. lngman, Jr. Post Office Building''. S. 3461. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2600 Wesley Street in Greenville, Texas, as the ``Audie Murphy Post Office Building''. S. 3462. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 909 West Holiday Drive in Fate, Texas, as the ``Ralph Hall Post Office''. S. 4126. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 104 East Main Street in Port Washington, Wisconsin, as the ``Joseph G. Demler Post Office''. S. 4684. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. Brown Post Office''. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence ofthe Senate: H.R. 970. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan for the removal of the monument to Robert E. Lee at the Antietam National Battlefield, and for other purposes. H.R. 1240. An act to preserve United States fishing heritage through a national program dedicated to training and assisting the next generation of commercial fishermen. H.R. 4988. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 Walnut Street in Bordentown, New Jersey, as the ``Clara Barton Post Office Building''. H.R. 5040. An act to direct the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to study the effects of drone incursions on wildfire suppression, and for other purposes. H.R. 5123. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 476 East Main Street in Galesburg, Illinois, as the ``Senior Airman Daniel Miller Post Office Building''. H.R. 5451. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 599 East Genesse Street in Fayetteville, New York, as the ``George H. Bacel Post Office Building''. H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5459. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to correct a land ownership error within the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5562. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Dionne Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building''. H.R. 5972. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 11 in Wilmington, Delaware, as the ``Marv Ann Shadd Cary Post Office''. H.R 5983. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4150 Chicago Avenue in Riverside, California, as the ``Woodie Rucker-Hughes Post Office Building''. H.R. 6016. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14955 West Bell Road in Surprise, Arizona, as the ``Marc Lee Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 6161. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 158S Yanceyville Street, Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``J. Howard Coble Post Office Building''. H.R. 6418. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 509 Fairhope Avenue in Fairhope, Alabama, as the ``William `Jack' Jackson Edwards Ill Post Office Building''. H.R. 7088. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as the ``Senator Jack Hill Post Office Building''. H.R. 7098. An act to expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, to authorize a study of additional land for potential inclusion in the park, and for other purposes. H.R. 7489. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Commonwealth of Virginia or the District of Columbia certain Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the National Park Service for the construction of rail and other infrastructure, and for other purposes. H.R. 7502, An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 South 16th Street in Clarinda, Iowa, as the ``Jessie Field Shambaugh Post Office Building''. H.R. 7810. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post Office Building''. H.R. 8611. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4755 Southeast Dixie Highway in Port Salerno, Florida, as the ``Joseph Bullock Post Office Building''. H.R. 8906. An act to amend title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program under such title relating to lifespan respite care. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolution, without amendment: S. Con. Res. 51. Concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of S. 1869. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bill, with an amendment, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: S. 1130. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the health of children and help better understand and enhance awareness about unexpected sudden death in early life. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1503) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding the list under section SOS(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5663) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to destroy counterfeit devices. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the text of thebill (H.R. 5273} to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to increase to 100 percent the rates of scanning of commercial and passenger vehicles entering the United States at land ports of entry along the border using large-scale non-intrusive inspection systems to enhance border security, and for other purposes, and that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the title of the aforementioned bill. Enrolled Bills Signed The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 134. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking. S. 199. An act to provide for the transfer of certain Federal land in the State of Minnesota for the benefit of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. S. 578. An act to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. S. 1014. An act to establish the Route 66 Centennial Commission, and for other purposes. S. 1153. An act to explicitly make unauthorized access to Department of Education information technology systems and the misuse of identification devices issued by the Department of Education a criminal act. S. 2258. An act to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust whistleblowers. S. 2904. An act to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on the outputs that may be generated by generative adversarial networks, otherwise known as deepfakes, and other comparable techniques that may be developed in the future, and for other purposes. S. 2981. An act to reauthorize and amend the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002, and for other purposes. S. 3703. An act to amend the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act to improve the prevention of elder abuse and exploitation of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. S. 4902. An act to designate the United States courthouse located 351 South West Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the ``Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse''. H.R. 473. An act to authorize the Every Word We Utter Monument to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes. H.R. 1830. An act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor. H.R. 2246. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 West Cherokee Street in Brookhaven, Mississippi, as the ``Deputy Donald William Durr, Corporal Zach Moak, and Patrolman James White Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 2454. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 East Sharpfish Street in Rosebud, South Dakota, as the ``Ben Reifel Post Office Building''. H.R. 2969. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1401 1st Street North in Winter Haven, Florida, as the ``Althea Margaret Daily Mills Post Office Building''. H.R. 3005. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 13308 Midland Road in Poway, California, as the ``Ray Chavez Post Office Building''. H.R. 3275. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 340 Wetmore Avenue in Grand River, Ohio. as the ``Lance Corporal Andy `Ace' Nowacki Post Office''. H.R. 3680. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 415 North Main Street in Henning, Tennessee, as the ``Paula Croom Robinson and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 3847, An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 117 West Poythress Street in Hopewell, Virginia, as the ``Reverend Curtis West Harris Post Office Building''. H.R. 3870. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 511 West 165th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Normandia Maldonado Post Office Building''. H.R. 4034. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, as the ``John Henry Turpin Post Office Building''. H.R. 4200. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 321 South 1st Street in Montrose, Colorado, as the ``Sergeant David Kinterknecht Post Office''. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''. H.R. 4672. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 21701 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California, as the ``Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew G. Axelson Post Office Building''. H.R. 4725. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 4761. An act to ensure U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, agents, and other personnel have adequate synthetic opioid detection equipment, that the Department of Homeland Security has a process to update synthetic opioid detection capability, and for other purposes. H.R. 4785. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, Texas, as the ``Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office''. H.R. 4875. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2201 E. Maple Street in North Canton, Ohio, as the ``Lance Cpl. Stacy `Annie' Dryden Post Office''. H.R. 4971. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 East Market Street in Leesburg, Virginia, as the ``Norman Duncan Post Office Building''. H.R. 4975. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1201 Sycamore Square Drive in Midlothian, Virginia, as the ``Dorothy Braden Bruce Post Office Building''. H.R. 5062. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9930 Conroy Windermere Road in Windermere, Florida, as the ``Officer Robert German Post Office Building''. H.R. 5307. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 115 Nicol Avenue in Thomasville, Alabama, as the ``Postmaster Robert Ingram Post Office''. H.R. 5317. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 315 Addicks Howell Road in Houston, Texas, as the ``Deputy Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal Post Office Building''. H.R. 5954. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 108 West Maple Street in Holly, Michigan, as the ``Holly Veterans Memorial Post Office''. The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7445-4 | null | 1,869 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | At 12:58 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, without amendment: S. 906. An act to improve the management of driftnet fishing. S. 3257. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 311 West Wisconsin Avenue in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, as the ``Elnar `Sarge' H. lngman, Jr. Post Office Building''. S. 3461. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2600 Wesley Street in Greenville, Texas, as the ``Audie Murphy Post Office Building''. S. 3462. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 909 West Holiday Drive in Fate, Texas, as the ``Ralph Hall Post Office''. S. 4126. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 104 East Main Street in Port Washington, Wisconsin, as the ``Joseph G. Demler Post Office''. S. 4684. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. Brown Post Office''. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence ofthe Senate: H.R. 970. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan for the removal of the monument to Robert E. Lee at the Antietam National Battlefield, and for other purposes. H.R. 1240. An act to preserve United States fishing heritage through a national program dedicated to training and assisting the next generation of commercial fishermen. H.R. 4988. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 Walnut Street in Bordentown, New Jersey, as the ``Clara Barton Post Office Building''. H.R. 5040. An act to direct the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to study the effects of drone incursions on wildfire suppression, and for other purposes. H.R. 5123. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 476 East Main Street in Galesburg, Illinois, as the ``Senior Airman Daniel Miller Post Office Building''. H.R. 5451. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 599 East Genesse Street in Fayetteville, New York, as the ``George H. Bacel Post Office Building''. H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5459. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to correct a land ownership error within the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5562. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Dionne Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building''. H.R. 5972. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 11 in Wilmington, Delaware, as the ``Marv Ann Shadd Cary Post Office''. H.R 5983. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4150 Chicago Avenue in Riverside, California, as the ``Woodie Rucker-Hughes Post Office Building''. H.R. 6016. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14955 West Bell Road in Surprise, Arizona, as the ``Marc Lee Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 6161. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 158S Yanceyville Street, Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``J. Howard Coble Post Office Building''. H.R. 6418. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 509 Fairhope Avenue in Fairhope, Alabama, as the ``William `Jack' Jackson Edwards Ill Post Office Building''. H.R. 7088. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as the ``Senator Jack Hill Post Office Building''. H.R. 7098. An act to expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, to authorize a study of additional land for potential inclusion in the park, and for other purposes. H.R. 7489. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Commonwealth of Virginia or the District of Columbia certain Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the National Park Service for the construction of rail and other infrastructure, and for other purposes. H.R. 7502, An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 South 16th Street in Clarinda, Iowa, as the ``Jessie Field Shambaugh Post Office Building''. H.R. 7810. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post Office Building''. H.R. 8611. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4755 Southeast Dixie Highway in Port Salerno, Florida, as the ``Joseph Bullock Post Office Building''. H.R. 8906. An act to amend title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program under such title relating to lifespan respite care. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolution, without amendment: S. Con. Res. 51. Concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of S. 1869. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bill, with an amendment, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: S. 1130. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the health of children and help better understand and enhance awareness about unexpected sudden death in early life. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1503) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding the list under section SOS(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5663) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to destroy counterfeit devices. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the text of thebill (H.R. 5273} to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to increase to 100 percent the rates of scanning of commercial and passenger vehicles entering the United States at land ports of entry along the border using large-scale non-intrusive inspection systems to enhance border security, and for other purposes, and that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the title of the aforementioned bill. Enrolled Bills Signed The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 134. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking. S. 199. An act to provide for the transfer of certain Federal land in the State of Minnesota for the benefit of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. S. 578. An act to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. S. 1014. An act to establish the Route 66 Centennial Commission, and for other purposes. S. 1153. An act to explicitly make unauthorized access to Department of Education information technology systems and the misuse of identification devices issued by the Department of Education a criminal act. S. 2258. An act to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust whistleblowers. S. 2904. An act to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on the outputs that may be generated by generative adversarial networks, otherwise known as deepfakes, and other comparable techniques that may be developed in the future, and for other purposes. S. 2981. An act to reauthorize and amend the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002, and for other purposes. S. 3703. An act to amend the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act to improve the prevention of elder abuse and exploitation of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. S. 4902. An act to designate the United States courthouse located 351 South West Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the ``Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse''. H.R. 473. An act to authorize the Every Word We Utter Monument to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes. H.R. 1830. An act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor. H.R. 2246. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 West Cherokee Street in Brookhaven, Mississippi, as the ``Deputy Donald William Durr, Corporal Zach Moak, and Patrolman James White Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 2454. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 East Sharpfish Street in Rosebud, South Dakota, as the ``Ben Reifel Post Office Building''. H.R. 2969. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1401 1st Street North in Winter Haven, Florida, as the ``Althea Margaret Daily Mills Post Office Building''. H.R. 3005. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 13308 Midland Road in Poway, California, as the ``Ray Chavez Post Office Building''. H.R. 3275. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 340 Wetmore Avenue in Grand River, Ohio. as the ``Lance Corporal Andy `Ace' Nowacki Post Office''. H.R. 3680. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 415 North Main Street in Henning, Tennessee, as the ``Paula Croom Robinson and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 3847, An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 117 West Poythress Street in Hopewell, Virginia, as the ``Reverend Curtis West Harris Post Office Building''. H.R. 3870. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 511 West 165th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Normandia Maldonado Post Office Building''. H.R. 4034. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, as the ``John Henry Turpin Post Office Building''. H.R. 4200. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 321 South 1st Street in Montrose, Colorado, as the ``Sergeant David Kinterknecht Post Office''. H.R. 4279. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''. H.R. 4672. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 21701 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California, as the ``Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew G. Axelson Post Office Building''. H.R. 4725. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building''. H.R. 4761. An act to ensure U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, agents, and other personnel have adequate synthetic opioid detection equipment, that the Department of Homeland Security has a process to update synthetic opioid detection capability, and for other purposes. H.R. 4785. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, Texas, as the ``Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office''. H.R. 4875. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2201 E. Maple Street in North Canton, Ohio, as the ``Lance Cpl. Stacy `Annie' Dryden Post Office''. H.R. 4971. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 East Market Street in Leesburg, Virginia, as the ``Norman Duncan Post Office Building''. H.R. 4975. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1201 Sycamore Square Drive in Midlothian, Virginia, as the ``Dorothy Braden Bruce Post Office Building''. H.R. 5062. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9930 Conroy Windermere Road in Windermere, Florida, as the ``Officer Robert German Post Office Building''. H.R. 5307. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 115 Nicol Avenue in Thomasville, Alabama, as the ``Postmaster Robert Ingram Post Office''. H.R. 5317. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 315 Addicks Howell Road in Houston, Texas, as the ``Deputy Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal Post Office Building''. H.R. 5954. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 108 West Maple Street in Holly, Michigan, as the ``Holly Veterans Memorial Post Office''. The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7445-4 | null | 1,870 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 970. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan for the removal of the monument to Robert E. Lee at the Antietam National Battlefield, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 4988. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 Walnut Street in Bordentown, New Jersey, as the ``Clara Barton Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5123. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 476 East Main Street in Galesburg, Illinois, as the ``Senior Airman Daniel Miller Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5451. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 599 East Genesse Street in Fayetteville, New York, as the ``George H. Bacel Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 5459. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to correct a land ownership error within the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 5562. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Dionne Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5972. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1, in Wilmington, Delaware, as the ``Mary Ann Shadd Cary Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 5983. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4150 Chicago Avenue in Riverside, California, as the ``Woodie Rucker-Hughes Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 6161. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1585 Yanceyville Street, Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``J. Howard Coble Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 6418. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 509 Fairhope Avenue in Fairhope, Alabama, as the ``William 'Jack' Jackson Edwards III Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 7088. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as the ``Senator Jack Hill Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 7098. An act to expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, to authorize a study of additional land for potential inclusion in the park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 7489. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Commonwealth of Virginia or the District of Columbia certain Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the National Park Service for the construction of rail and other infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 7502. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 South 16th Street in Clarinda, Iowa, as the ``Jessie Field Shambaugh Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 7810. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 8611. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4755 Southeast Dixie Highway in Port Salerno, Florida, as the ``Joseph Bullock Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-11-pt1-PgS7447 | null | 1,871 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this past weekend, we saw that the historic nationwide effort to bring this pandemic to heel has begun a critical final chapter. After months of development, the first U.S. doses of COVID-19 vaccine rolled off the assembly line, bound for treatment facilities all across our country. I am particularly proud that an important waypoint on that journey is my hometown of Louisville, KY. Yesterday alone, Pfizer shipped 2.5 million vaccine doses, and less than an hour after their airlift began, shipments bound for the eastern United States were passing through the UPS Worldport logistics hub at Muhammad Ali International Airport in Louisville. In the days and weeks ahead, the hard work of Kentuckians at UPS's new healthcare command center in Louisville will play a critical role in finishing this fight. Already they have helped direct tens of thousands of doses to Kentucky hospitals, where they are being administered to the Commonwealth's healthcare workers and most at-risk residents. There is a historic success story being written today along the vaccine supply chain, from Missouri to Massachusetts, to Michigan, to Kentucky, to frontlines all across our country, and it is emblematic of an approach that has been helping our country since the earliest days of the crisis. From the personal precautions that helped save our health system to the bravery of the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers who spent sleepless nights tending to victims of the virus, to the ingenuity of entrepreneurs who have spun out masks and sanitizer or kept serving their customers safely, to the patience of parents and school kids who have had to adapt in extraordinary ways, to our economic efforts to blunt the pain of a self-inflicted slowdown without precedent, all along the way, it has been a heroic, resilient American people fighting and winning this battle, with the government providing smart, targeted, and essential support to sustain them. It is the American people who have brought the light at the end of the tunnel within sight, but Washington has played a key role in creating the conditions for them to do it. That joint effort is how the unanimous, bipartisan CARES Act programs helped to sustain struggling families, prevented millions more layoffs, and gave Main Street a fighting chance. It is how Operation Warp Speed has helped to unleash private enterprise and the genius of researchers on a breakneck campaign for a cure that, just a few months ago, the mainstream media was lecturing President Trump would be impossible. At every step, the story of this year has been American workers and families digging deep, muscling through, and lending one another a helping hand, with an assist from those of us here in Congress. But there is a problem. The American people's work is notfinished. The struggle continues every day. Cases and deaths are mounting. The commerce that sustains small businesses is still depressed. Working families are still trying to grind through, but recently Washington has not held up its end of the bargain. For months--literally months--both sides in Congress have known roughly what the shape of a compromise rescue package could look like. We know all the areas where we do not even disagree and should be able to make significant law. But, alas, partisan dynamics and political posturing have prevented us from getting more relief out the door, even in areas where nobody even claims to disagree. I don't want to relitigate the last weeks and months this afternoon. Anyone who wants to dole out blame has a clear record they can analyze. It is time for this body to collectively recognize that finger-pointing doesn't put food on the table for struggling families. Finger-pointing doesn't help people avoid having to choose between Christmas gifts and making rent. And finger-pointing does not do a darn thing to fund vaccine distribution so we can slam the door on this virus as fast as possible and maximize the number of lives we can save. That last point is a concern that State health officials across the country have raised repeatedly. Even with vaccines on the way, many are reporting that they don't have the funds to hire enough trained workers or purchase enough PPE to safely administer them as fast as possible. As one health observer put it, ``It would be a shame if all the effort on Warp Speed for development isn't warp speed for distribution.'' That is what we risk if Congress can't get our act together and supply the funds to deliver this literal shot in the arm to our people. This is the support that State and local governments need most urgently--not unfettered slush funds for non-COVID-related needs that predate the pandemic but incredibly urgent, targeted money to get citizens vaccinated right now and finish the fight. That isn't the only urgent priority that Congress must not leave behind. The same business owners and working families who relied on the Paycheck Protection Program to get them through the bleakest points of the spring and summer are, once again, facing tough choices. Renewed health restrictions and decreased demand mean that some American jobs that have been sustained all this period may not survive the last home stretch. So we can help. We can provide a second round of job-saving PPP tailored to those who need it most. And what about Americans who have already lost their jobs in the pandemic through no fault of their own? Several key unemployment programs are set to expire at the end of the month. This is not an outcome that struggling people deserve, least of all during the holiday. So we should act. We should act. The next several days are going to bring about one of two outcomes. Either 100 Senators will be here shaking our heads, slinging blame, and offering excuses about why we still have not been able to make a law, or we will break for the holidays having sent another huge dose of relief out the door for the people who need it. So, look, it is up to us. It is up to us. We decide. This is entirely within our control. I can speak for the Republican side: We want to make a law to agree where we can and help people who need it. I hope and believe that my Democratic colleagues will feel the same way. It is about time to get this done. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-14-pt1-PgS7453-6 | null | 1,872 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this week, the Senate returns with precious little time left to finish important matters of business. Last week, both Houses of Congress passed the annual Defense bill with veto-proof majorities. If President Trump takes the rather ridiculous step of vetoing a pay raise for our troops in order to defend the honor of dead Confederate traitors--or whatever other contrived grounds he comes up with--Congress must override that veto. On Friday, both Chambers of Congress also passed a 1-week continuing resolution, giving us until the end of this week to finish an omnibus appropriations bill to fund the government. As usual, the appropriations bill will include several important pieces of related legislation. One that doesn't get enough attention is a bipartisan energy bill. Earlier this year, during the debate over the Energy bill, Senate Democrats insisted that a provision to reduce HFCs--a very harmful greenhouse gas that is driving our climate change problem--must be included in the bill. Unfortunately, we had to hold up the bill until a bipartisan agreement could be reached on this critical provision, which would be the single biggest victory in the fight against climate change to pass this body in a decade. Today, I am very happy to report that we have made very good progress toward an agreement on HFC reduction. We are about to get it done. That is one of the biggest victories to fight global warming in a very long time. I want to thank Senators Carper, Kennedy, and Barrasso. They have worked very diligently and very hard to craft a compromise. Finally, as we all know, it is imperative we pass another round of emergency Federal relief from the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, the bipartisan group of Senators who have been diligently working toward an agreement will announce the results of their work: a package of over $900 billion that includes an agreement on assistance to State and local government. Notably, there is no agreement on corporate immunity. We look forward to reviewing their work. Democrats remain 100 percent committed to getting another round of emergency relief to the American people before the end of the year and in a robust, bold way because America needs it so badly. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-14-pt1-PgS7455-4 | null | 1,873 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, a year that was full of bad news for the country is coming to an end with some very good news. Over the past 8 to 9 months, American scientists, biochemists, and researchers rushed to produce a safe and effective vaccine to the COVID-19 pandemic--and they have succeeded in extraordinary fashion. We don't have just one but several candidates for a vaccine, each of which has shown to be 90 percent effective in clinical trials. One of those vaccines has been approved, authorized by the FDA for emergency use. And as we speak, an assembly line of workers in masks, gloves, and face shields are pulling doses out of the freezer, loading them into cold storage palettes, and onto trucks to be shipped to States across the country. The discovery of a COVID-19 vaccine within the timeframe of a calendar year is a crowning scientific achievement of the 21st century. It should bring not only a feeling of relief to the country--indeed, to the entire world--but also deep admiration and pride for America's scientists and our medical workers. I remember, in the early days of the pandemic, going to the window of our Brooklyn apartment each night to applaud our frontline workers. The whoops, claps, and metallic clang of pots and pans echoed for miles. Our medical researchers--as well as thousands of Americans who selflessly volunteered for clinical trials--deserve the same national expression of gratitude. We can show our gratitude here in Congress by communicating clearly that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and that every American should inoculate themselves when it becomes available. Skepticism about vaccines was already too high before the pandemic. Several polls have shown it to be an alarming concern with respect to the COVID-19 vaccine. It is an absolute disgrace that the Republican majority on the Homeland Security Committee has invited a prominent skeptic of the COVID-19 vaccine to deliver testimony in a hearing this week. Public figures at all levels should be building up confidence in a vaccine, not giving a platform to those who undermine it. At the moment, the vaccine is being distributed to medical personnel, doctors, nurses, frontline workers, and the most vulnerable populations. I myself will take the vaccine as soon as it is appropriate and recommended. I will not skip the line. But make no mistake, we should all lead by example, commit to taking the vaccine, and tell our constituents to take it as well. The CDC and our States will continue to advise which populations should be inoculated based on availability, and we will follow that guidance | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-14-pt1-PgS7455-5 | null | 1,874 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now one other note--today, members of the electoral college are gathering in all 50 States and the District of Columbia to formally select Joe Biden as the next President of the United States of America. Typically, the meeting of the electoral college is merely a formality. The Presidential election took place over a month ago. The result is not in doubt. In almost any other year, both major parties would have fully and publicly accepted the will of the American people by now--the peaceful passing of the torch, a hallmark of our grand democracy. But this year, it seems as if Joe Biden has had to be declared the winner of the Presidential election again and again and again--and still, our Republican colleagues have not fully come to grips with that reality. Just how many times does President Trump have to lose before rank-and-file Republicans--before most Senators--acknowledge that Joe Biden will be the next President of the United States? Last week, more than 100 Republican Members of the House of Representatives signed their names to a lawsuit that would invalidate the results of the election in four swing States. For any serious person, much less a Member of the U.S. Congress, to sign their name to such an anti-democratic document is beyond shameful. To my knowledge, the Republican leader of the Senate still has not referred to Joe Biden as President-elect. Will he change his tune now that the electoral college has once again confirmed his victory? Will the rest of my Republican Senate colleagues do the same? After no evidence of widespread voter fraud was found in the country, after State election officials corroborated the accuracy of the results in every State in the country, after the Trump campaign's legal team racked up an astonishing win-loss record of 1 and 59, after the Supreme Court summarily dismissed two ludicrous efforts by Republicans to invalidate the results in swing States, will the Republican Party in Congress, here in the Senate, finally acknowledge the results of an election that was determined over a month ago? Just how long are Republicans going to keep up this charade, which has become a national embarrassment? Even now, the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee is planning to hold a hearing this week about what he calls ``election irregularities.'' Look, our Republican colleagues don't have to like the results of the election, but they have a solemn responsibility to accept them. They have a duty to confer legitimacy on them. Instead, for the past month, they have given President Trump the space to promote wild conspiracy theories about election fraud and poison Americans' faith in our democracy. As the electoral college casts the majority of its votes for Joe Biden--the same number of votes that President Trump called a landslide 4 years ago--our Republican colleagues must do now what they should have done a month ago: Accept the legitimacy of Joe Biden's election to the Presidency of the United States. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-14-pt1-PgS7455-6 | null | 1,875 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Judicial Nominations Mr. President, even before President Trump officially nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court, liberals in the media and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle unfortunately--well, they took it upon themselves to be the first to question Judge Barrett's fitness. But rather than attacking her record, they launched some truly insulting attacks on her religion, her family, her relationship with her husband, and her choice to balance a stunning career with a large, blended family. You can count on the left to choose intellectual isolation, and you can count on them to look at a woman on the political right and say: If you are pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business, pro-military, pro-life, we do not want to hear from you. Those attacks may have made the American people cringe, but they certainly didn't turn public opinion against Judge Barrett's confirmation. That campaign failed miserably. If anything, it provided a much needed reminder that, just like the fight for suffrage in the 1920s, the modern woman's fight for equality in 2020 is about more than succeeding in a single job or engaging in a single civic action; it is about exercising our right to participate in democracy and engage in the public square without having to throw ourselves at the mercy of the left's moving goalpost that they use to arbitrarily define what is and is not an acceptable way of life. Justice Barrett is now the third Justice President Trump has placed on the Supreme Court. She is in good company because she is part of a class of 229 Federal judges confirmed so far under President Trump, 144 of them during this Congress. And I expect that we will see a few more join the ranks before we adjourn for Christmas, including two Tennesseans who are on this list. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-14-pt1-PgS7461-3 | null | 1,876 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2705. Mr. McCONNELL (for Mr. Thune) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 2597, to require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make certain operational models available to the public, and for other purposes. SA 2706. Mr. McCONNELL (for Mr. Wicker) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 4704, to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support multidisciplinary research on the science of suicide, and to advance the knowledge and understanding of issues that may be associated with several aspects of suicide including intrinsic and extrinsic factors related to areas such as wellbeing, resilience, and vulnerability. SA 2707. Mr. McCONNELL (for Mr. Alexander) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1636, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the scope of new chemical exclusivity. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-14-pt1-PgS7466 | null | 1,877 |
formal | urban | 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. NEAL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3436. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove cost- sharing responsibilities for chronic care management services under the Medicare program; with an amendment (Rept. 116-646, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 278. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities, easements, and rights-of-way to the Kennewick Irrigation District, and for other purposes (Rept. 116-647). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3977. A bill to amend the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 to extend the jurisdiction of tribal courts to cover crimes involving sexual violence, and for other purposes (Rept. 116-648). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 4444. A bill to require the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration to establish a pilot project to provide increased transparency for customers, and for other purposes (Rept. 116-649). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 7099. A bill to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of Coconino National Forest land in the State of Arizona; with an amendment (Rept. 116-650). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 6535. A bill to deem an urban Indian organization and employees thereof to be a part of the Public Health Service for the purposes of certain claims for personal injury, and for other purposes (Rept. 116-651, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 4840. A bill to modify the boundary of the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-652). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 5330. A bill to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to provide a timetable for verification of medical debt and to increase the efficiency of credit markets with more perfect information, to prohibit consumer reporting agencies from issuing consumer reports containing information about debts related to medically necessary procedure, about and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. 116-653). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4403. A bill to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to restrict the debt collection practices of certain debt collectors; with an amendment (Rept. 116-654). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgH7158-3 | null | 1,878 |
formal | Islamic terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last 4 years, our country has benefited from a Presidential term filled with major accomplishments. President Donald Trump has repeatedly surprised the skeptics, confounded his critics, and delivered significant policy victories that have strengthened our country. Case in point, back in May, when the President set the goal of finding a pandemic-ending vaccine by the end of this year, his timeline was literally dismissed by people who assumed they knew better. Here is one quote: ``Trump promises coronavirus vaccine by the end of year,'' scoffed one headline, ``but his own experts temper expectations.'' ``Fact check'' complained another headline, ``Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a `miracle' to be right.'' Well, with the genius of science, support from Congress, and the bold leadership of the Trump administration, that medical miracle arrived right on schedule. Americans on the frontlines are receiving vaccinations as we speak. This episode offers a kind of microcosm of the last 4 years. On so many subjects--from economic prosperity to foreign policy, to protecting American families--the skeptics doubted him. The critics derided him. But President Trump has delivered. When President Trump ran for office, he promised to help open a new chapter for working families. After 8 years of failed policies that concentrated wealth and optimism among the lucky few, prosperity was going to flow to all kinds of workers in all kinds of communities, he said. And that is exactly what happened. Before this pandemic spread from China and the world had to slam on the brakes, the American people had the best job market in living memory. With help from the policies of President Trump and Republicans in Congress, American workers dynamited the stagnation that experts had said was ``the new normal.'' Unemployment hit a 50-year low. Capital markets hit record highs. And this time, all kinds of Americans got to share in the gains. We saw earnings grow faster for workers than for managers, faster for the bottom 25 than for the top 25. This success was fueled in part by the policy leadership of President Trump. This administration pursued bold regulatory changes. Once-in-a-generation tax reform had eluded prior leaders. This President signed it into law in his first year. And together we repealed the worst part of ObamaCare. The unfair individual mandate was zeroed out. President Trump also took historic steps to strengthen the future of ourtrade with the world. He secured the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the bilateral tax treaties with partners in Europe and in Asia. A nation this productive needs plenty of energy to keep it going. Fortunately, President Trump and his administration ended the ideological war on fossil fuels and hit the accelerator on ``all of the above'' American energy dominance. In the last 4 years, we surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production. We saw energy exports exceed energy imports for the first year in almost 70 years. Meanwhile, we saw CO2 emissions fall, along with other harmful pollutants. That energy independence has dramatically strengthened our hand with respect to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. So speaking of the Middle East, President Trump wasted little time pulling back from the prior administration's disastrous ``Iran deal.'' His team eliminated daylight between us and Israel and repaired our relationships with Arab partners. And he aligned these relationships around our common shared interests--countering threats like radical Islamic terrorists and Iranian aggression. Under President Trump's command, our forces took terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and Soleimani off the battlefield. The physical caliphate that ISIS established on the previous President's watch was destroyed. All of this paved the way for the Abraham accords, the historic normalization of relationships between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and, most recently, Morocco. And the potential is there for more on the horizon. Now, the Middle East isn't the only place where the Trump administration has shored up our footing on the world stage. Our 45th Commander in Chief sought out to rebuild and modernize our military and to move our foreign policy from a chapter of weakness and apology into a renewed posture of strength. Four years later, we have a new national defense strategy to compete with and deter adversaries like Russia and China. We have rebuilt the military and invested in new technologies to ensure America keeps our edge in everything from cyber to space, to advanced weapons system. The President's leadership does not stop with those who are currently serving. He also signed into law the historic VA MISSION Act to ensure our dedication to the men and women in uniform does not end when their tours conclude. So, clearly, the list of American accomplishments since 2016 is nearly endless. There are the many miles of new protections on our southern border. At one point, apprehensions at the border hit their lowest level since the 1970s. Essential causes, like religious liberty and the most vulnerable, the unborn, have had a champion in this administration instead of an adversary. There have been historic new steps to conserve our national treasures, like the Great American Outdoors Act. And perhaps most important of all, President Trump nominated--and this Senate confirmed--three outstanding Supreme Court Justices, along with more than 220 more article III Federal judges. These are brilliant, young, constitutionalist men and women in lifetime appointments who will renew the judiciary for a new generation--all because President Trump knows we need judges who respect the essential but limited job description the Framers wrote for our third branch of government. So as you can see, it would take far more than one speech to catalogue all the major wins the Trump administration has helped deliver for the American people. The outsider who swore he would shake up Washington and lead our country to new accomplishments both at home and abroad proceeded to do exactly that. President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence deserve our thanks and our gratitude for their tireless work and their essential roles in all of these victories and in many more. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7473-6 | null | 1,879 |
formal | Islamic terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last 4 years, our country has benefited from a Presidential term filled with major accomplishments. President Donald Trump has repeatedly surprised the skeptics, confounded his critics, and delivered significant policy victories that have strengthened our country. Case in point, back in May, when the President set the goal of finding a pandemic-ending vaccine by the end of this year, his timeline was literally dismissed by people who assumed they knew better. Here is one quote: ``Trump promises coronavirus vaccine by the end of year,'' scoffed one headline, ``but his own experts temper expectations.'' ``Fact check'' complained another headline, ``Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a `miracle' to be right.'' Well, with the genius of science, support from Congress, and the bold leadership of the Trump administration, that medical miracle arrived right on schedule. Americans on the frontlines are receiving vaccinations as we speak. This episode offers a kind of microcosm of the last 4 years. On so many subjects--from economic prosperity to foreign policy, to protecting American families--the skeptics doubted him. The critics derided him. But President Trump has delivered. When President Trump ran for office, he promised to help open a new chapter for working families. After 8 years of failed policies that concentrated wealth and optimism among the lucky few, prosperity was going to flow to all kinds of workers in all kinds of communities, he said. And that is exactly what happened. Before this pandemic spread from China and the world had to slam on the brakes, the American people had the best job market in living memory. With help from the policies of President Trump and Republicans in Congress, American workers dynamited the stagnation that experts had said was ``the new normal.'' Unemployment hit a 50-year low. Capital markets hit record highs. And this time, all kinds of Americans got to share in the gains. We saw earnings grow faster for workers than for managers, faster for the bottom 25 than for the top 25. This success was fueled in part by the policy leadership of President Trump. This administration pursued bold regulatory changes. Once-in-a-generation tax reform had eluded prior leaders. This President signed it into law in his first year. And together we repealed the worst part of ObamaCare. The unfair individual mandate was zeroed out. President Trump also took historic steps to strengthen the future of ourtrade with the world. He secured the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the bilateral tax treaties with partners in Europe and in Asia. A nation this productive needs plenty of energy to keep it going. Fortunately, President Trump and his administration ended the ideological war on fossil fuels and hit the accelerator on ``all of the above'' American energy dominance. In the last 4 years, we surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production. We saw energy exports exceed energy imports for the first year in almost 70 years. Meanwhile, we saw CO2 emissions fall, along with other harmful pollutants. That energy independence has dramatically strengthened our hand with respect to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. So speaking of the Middle East, President Trump wasted little time pulling back from the prior administration's disastrous ``Iran deal.'' His team eliminated daylight between us and Israel and repaired our relationships with Arab partners. And he aligned these relationships around our common shared interests--countering threats like radical Islamic terrorists and Iranian aggression. Under President Trump's command, our forces took terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and Soleimani off the battlefield. The physical caliphate that ISIS established on the previous President's watch was destroyed. All of this paved the way for the Abraham accords, the historic normalization of relationships between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and, most recently, Morocco. And the potential is there for more on the horizon. Now, the Middle East isn't the only place where the Trump administration has shored up our footing on the world stage. Our 45th Commander in Chief sought out to rebuild and modernize our military and to move our foreign policy from a chapter of weakness and apology into a renewed posture of strength. Four years later, we have a new national defense strategy to compete with and deter adversaries like Russia and China. We have rebuilt the military and invested in new technologies to ensure America keeps our edge in everything from cyber to space, to advanced weapons system. The President's leadership does not stop with those who are currently serving. He also signed into law the historic VA MISSION Act to ensure our dedication to the men and women in uniform does not end when their tours conclude. So, clearly, the list of American accomplishments since 2016 is nearly endless. There are the many miles of new protections on our southern border. At one point, apprehensions at the border hit their lowest level since the 1970s. Essential causes, like religious liberty and the most vulnerable, the unborn, have had a champion in this administration instead of an adversary. There have been historic new steps to conserve our national treasures, like the Great American Outdoors Act. And perhaps most important of all, President Trump nominated--and this Senate confirmed--three outstanding Supreme Court Justices, along with more than 220 more article III Federal judges. These are brilliant, young, constitutionalist men and women in lifetime appointments who will renew the judiciary for a new generation--all because President Trump knows we need judges who respect the essential but limited job description the Framers wrote for our third branch of government. So as you can see, it would take far more than one speech to catalogue all the major wins the Trump administration has helped deliver for the American people. The outsider who swore he would shake up Washington and lead our country to new accomplishments both at home and abroad proceeded to do exactly that. President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence deserve our thanks and our gratitude for their tireless work and their essential roles in all of these victories and in many more. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7473-6 | null | 1,880 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last 4 years, our country has benefited from a Presidential term filled with major accomplishments. President Donald Trump has repeatedly surprised the skeptics, confounded his critics, and delivered significant policy victories that have strengthened our country. Case in point, back in May, when the President set the goal of finding a pandemic-ending vaccine by the end of this year, his timeline was literally dismissed by people who assumed they knew better. Here is one quote: ``Trump promises coronavirus vaccine by the end of year,'' scoffed one headline, ``but his own experts temper expectations.'' ``Fact check'' complained another headline, ``Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a `miracle' to be right.'' Well, with the genius of science, support from Congress, and the bold leadership of the Trump administration, that medical miracle arrived right on schedule. Americans on the frontlines are receiving vaccinations as we speak. This episode offers a kind of microcosm of the last 4 years. On so many subjects--from economic prosperity to foreign policy, to protecting American families--the skeptics doubted him. The critics derided him. But President Trump has delivered. When President Trump ran for office, he promised to help open a new chapter for working families. After 8 years of failed policies that concentrated wealth and optimism among the lucky few, prosperity was going to flow to all kinds of workers in all kinds of communities, he said. And that is exactly what happened. Before this pandemic spread from China and the world had to slam on the brakes, the American people had the best job market in living memory. With help from the policies of President Trump and Republicans in Congress, American workers dynamited the stagnation that experts had said was ``the new normal.'' Unemployment hit a 50-year low. Capital markets hit record highs. And this time, all kinds of Americans got to share in the gains. We saw earnings grow faster for workers than for managers, faster for the bottom 25 than for the top 25. This success was fueled in part by the policy leadership of President Trump. This administration pursued bold regulatory changes. Once-in-a-generation tax reform had eluded prior leaders. This President signed it into law in his first year. And together we repealed the worst part of ObamaCare. The unfair individual mandate was zeroed out. President Trump also took historic steps to strengthen the future of ourtrade with the world. He secured the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the bilateral tax treaties with partners in Europe and in Asia. A nation this productive needs plenty of energy to keep it going. Fortunately, President Trump and his administration ended the ideological war on fossil fuels and hit the accelerator on ``all of the above'' American energy dominance. In the last 4 years, we surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production. We saw energy exports exceed energy imports for the first year in almost 70 years. Meanwhile, we saw CO2 emissions fall, along with other harmful pollutants. That energy independence has dramatically strengthened our hand with respect to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. So speaking of the Middle East, President Trump wasted little time pulling back from the prior administration's disastrous ``Iran deal.'' His team eliminated daylight between us and Israel and repaired our relationships with Arab partners. And he aligned these relationships around our common shared interests--countering threats like radical Islamic terrorists and Iranian aggression. Under President Trump's command, our forces took terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and Soleimani off the battlefield. The physical caliphate that ISIS established on the previous President's watch was destroyed. All of this paved the way for the Abraham accords, the historic normalization of relationships between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and, most recently, Morocco. And the potential is there for more on the horizon. Now, the Middle East isn't the only place where the Trump administration has shored up our footing on the world stage. Our 45th Commander in Chief sought out to rebuild and modernize our military and to move our foreign policy from a chapter of weakness and apology into a renewed posture of strength. Four years later, we have a new national defense strategy to compete with and deter adversaries like Russia and China. We have rebuilt the military and invested in new technologies to ensure America keeps our edge in everything from cyber to space, to advanced weapons system. The President's leadership does not stop with those who are currently serving. He also signed into law the historic VA MISSION Act to ensure our dedication to the men and women in uniform does not end when their tours conclude. So, clearly, the list of American accomplishments since 2016 is nearly endless. There are the many miles of new protections on our southern border. At one point, apprehensions at the border hit their lowest level since the 1970s. Essential causes, like religious liberty and the most vulnerable, the unborn, have had a champion in this administration instead of an adversary. There have been historic new steps to conserve our national treasures, like the Great American Outdoors Act. And perhaps most important of all, President Trump nominated--and this Senate confirmed--three outstanding Supreme Court Justices, along with more than 220 more article III Federal judges. These are brilliant, young, constitutionalist men and women in lifetime appointments who will renew the judiciary for a new generation--all because President Trump knows we need judges who respect the essential but limited job description the Framers wrote for our third branch of government. So as you can see, it would take far more than one speech to catalogue all the major wins the Trump administration has helped deliver for the American people. The outsider who swore he would shake up Washington and lead our country to new accomplishments both at home and abroad proceeded to do exactly that. President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence deserve our thanks and our gratitude for their tireless work and their essential roles in all of these victories and in many more. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7473-6 | null | 1,881 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last 4 years, our country has benefited from a Presidential term filled with major accomplishments. President Donald Trump has repeatedly surprised the skeptics, confounded his critics, and delivered significant policy victories that have strengthened our country. Case in point, back in May, when the President set the goal of finding a pandemic-ending vaccine by the end of this year, his timeline was literally dismissed by people who assumed they knew better. Here is one quote: ``Trump promises coronavirus vaccine by the end of year,'' scoffed one headline, ``but his own experts temper expectations.'' ``Fact check'' complained another headline, ``Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a `miracle' to be right.'' Well, with the genius of science, support from Congress, and the bold leadership of the Trump administration, that medical miracle arrived right on schedule. Americans on the frontlines are receiving vaccinations as we speak. This episode offers a kind of microcosm of the last 4 years. On so many subjects--from economic prosperity to foreign policy, to protecting American families--the skeptics doubted him. The critics derided him. But President Trump has delivered. When President Trump ran for office, he promised to help open a new chapter for working families. After 8 years of failed policies that concentrated wealth and optimism among the lucky few, prosperity was going to flow to all kinds of workers in all kinds of communities, he said. And that is exactly what happened. Before this pandemic spread from China and the world had to slam on the brakes, the American people had the best job market in living memory. With help from the policies of President Trump and Republicans in Congress, American workers dynamited the stagnation that experts had said was ``the new normal.'' Unemployment hit a 50-year low. Capital markets hit record highs. And this time, all kinds of Americans got to share in the gains. We saw earnings grow faster for workers than for managers, faster for the bottom 25 than for the top 25. This success was fueled in part by the policy leadership of President Trump. This administration pursued bold regulatory changes. Once-in-a-generation tax reform had eluded prior leaders. This President signed it into law in his first year. And together we repealed the worst part of ObamaCare. The unfair individual mandate was zeroed out. President Trump also took historic steps to strengthen the future of ourtrade with the world. He secured the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the bilateral tax treaties with partners in Europe and in Asia. A nation this productive needs plenty of energy to keep it going. Fortunately, President Trump and his administration ended the ideological war on fossil fuels and hit the accelerator on ``all of the above'' American energy dominance. In the last 4 years, we surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production. We saw energy exports exceed energy imports for the first year in almost 70 years. Meanwhile, we saw CO2 emissions fall, along with other harmful pollutants. That energy independence has dramatically strengthened our hand with respect to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. So speaking of the Middle East, President Trump wasted little time pulling back from the prior administration's disastrous ``Iran deal.'' His team eliminated daylight between us and Israel and repaired our relationships with Arab partners. And he aligned these relationships around our common shared interests--countering threats like radical Islamic terrorists and Iranian aggression. Under President Trump's command, our forces took terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and Soleimani off the battlefield. The physical caliphate that ISIS established on the previous President's watch was destroyed. All of this paved the way for the Abraham accords, the historic normalization of relationships between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and, most recently, Morocco. And the potential is there for more on the horizon. Now, the Middle East isn't the only place where the Trump administration has shored up our footing on the world stage. Our 45th Commander in Chief sought out to rebuild and modernize our military and to move our foreign policy from a chapter of weakness and apology into a renewed posture of strength. Four years later, we have a new national defense strategy to compete with and deter adversaries like Russia and China. We have rebuilt the military and invested in new technologies to ensure America keeps our edge in everything from cyber to space, to advanced weapons system. The President's leadership does not stop with those who are currently serving. He also signed into law the historic VA MISSION Act to ensure our dedication to the men and women in uniform does not end when their tours conclude. So, clearly, the list of American accomplishments since 2016 is nearly endless. There are the many miles of new protections on our southern border. At one point, apprehensions at the border hit their lowest level since the 1970s. Essential causes, like religious liberty and the most vulnerable, the unborn, have had a champion in this administration instead of an adversary. There have been historic new steps to conserve our national treasures, like the Great American Outdoors Act. And perhaps most important of all, President Trump nominated--and this Senate confirmed--three outstanding Supreme Court Justices, along with more than 220 more article III Federal judges. These are brilliant, young, constitutionalist men and women in lifetime appointments who will renew the judiciary for a new generation--all because President Trump knows we need judges who respect the essential but limited job description the Framers wrote for our third branch of government. So as you can see, it would take far more than one speech to catalogue all the major wins the Trump administration has helped deliver for the American people. The outsider who swore he would shake up Washington and lead our country to new accomplishments both at home and abroad proceeded to do exactly that. President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence deserve our thanks and our gratitude for their tireless work and their essential roles in all of these victories and in many more. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7473-6 | null | 1,882 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last 4 years, our country has benefited from a Presidential term filled with major accomplishments. President Donald Trump has repeatedly surprised the skeptics, confounded his critics, and delivered significant policy victories that have strengthened our country. Case in point, back in May, when the President set the goal of finding a pandemic-ending vaccine by the end of this year, his timeline was literally dismissed by people who assumed they knew better. Here is one quote: ``Trump promises coronavirus vaccine by the end of year,'' scoffed one headline, ``but his own experts temper expectations.'' ``Fact check'' complained another headline, ``Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a `miracle' to be right.'' Well, with the genius of science, support from Congress, and the bold leadership of the Trump administration, that medical miracle arrived right on schedule. Americans on the frontlines are receiving vaccinations as we speak. This episode offers a kind of microcosm of the last 4 years. On so many subjects--from economic prosperity to foreign policy, to protecting American families--the skeptics doubted him. The critics derided him. But President Trump has delivered. When President Trump ran for office, he promised to help open a new chapter for working families. After 8 years of failed policies that concentrated wealth and optimism among the lucky few, prosperity was going to flow to all kinds of workers in all kinds of communities, he said. And that is exactly what happened. Before this pandemic spread from China and the world had to slam on the brakes, the American people had the best job market in living memory. With help from the policies of President Trump and Republicans in Congress, American workers dynamited the stagnation that experts had said was ``the new normal.'' Unemployment hit a 50-year low. Capital markets hit record highs. And this time, all kinds of Americans got to share in the gains. We saw earnings grow faster for workers than for managers, faster for the bottom 25 than for the top 25. This success was fueled in part by the policy leadership of President Trump. This administration pursued bold regulatory changes. Once-in-a-generation tax reform had eluded prior leaders. This President signed it into law in his first year. And together we repealed the worst part of ObamaCare. The unfair individual mandate was zeroed out. President Trump also took historic steps to strengthen the future of ourtrade with the world. He secured the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the bilateral tax treaties with partners in Europe and in Asia. A nation this productive needs plenty of energy to keep it going. Fortunately, President Trump and his administration ended the ideological war on fossil fuels and hit the accelerator on ``all of the above'' American energy dominance. In the last 4 years, we surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production. We saw energy exports exceed energy imports for the first year in almost 70 years. Meanwhile, we saw CO2 emissions fall, along with other harmful pollutants. That energy independence has dramatically strengthened our hand with respect to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. So speaking of the Middle East, President Trump wasted little time pulling back from the prior administration's disastrous ``Iran deal.'' His team eliminated daylight between us and Israel and repaired our relationships with Arab partners. And he aligned these relationships around our common shared interests--countering threats like radical Islamic terrorists and Iranian aggression. Under President Trump's command, our forces took terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and Soleimani off the battlefield. The physical caliphate that ISIS established on the previous President's watch was destroyed. All of this paved the way for the Abraham accords, the historic normalization of relationships between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and, most recently, Morocco. And the potential is there for more on the horizon. Now, the Middle East isn't the only place where the Trump administration has shored up our footing on the world stage. Our 45th Commander in Chief sought out to rebuild and modernize our military and to move our foreign policy from a chapter of weakness and apology into a renewed posture of strength. Four years later, we have a new national defense strategy to compete with and deter adversaries like Russia and China. We have rebuilt the military and invested in new technologies to ensure America keeps our edge in everything from cyber to space, to advanced weapons system. The President's leadership does not stop with those who are currently serving. He also signed into law the historic VA MISSION Act to ensure our dedication to the men and women in uniform does not end when their tours conclude. So, clearly, the list of American accomplishments since 2016 is nearly endless. There are the many miles of new protections on our southern border. At one point, apprehensions at the border hit their lowest level since the 1970s. Essential causes, like religious liberty and the most vulnerable, the unborn, have had a champion in this administration instead of an adversary. There have been historic new steps to conserve our national treasures, like the Great American Outdoors Act. And perhaps most important of all, President Trump nominated--and this Senate confirmed--three outstanding Supreme Court Justices, along with more than 220 more article III Federal judges. These are brilliant, young, constitutionalist men and women in lifetime appointments who will renew the judiciary for a new generation--all because President Trump knows we need judges who respect the essential but limited job description the Framers wrote for our third branch of government. So as you can see, it would take far more than one speech to catalogue all the major wins the Trump administration has helped deliver for the American people. The outsider who swore he would shake up Washington and lead our country to new accomplishments both at home and abroad proceeded to do exactly that. President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence deserve our thanks and our gratitude for their tireless work and their essential roles in all of these victories and in many more. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7473-6 | null | 1,883 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last 4 years, our country has benefited from a Presidential term filled with major accomplishments. President Donald Trump has repeatedly surprised the skeptics, confounded his critics, and delivered significant policy victories that have strengthened our country. Case in point, back in May, when the President set the goal of finding a pandemic-ending vaccine by the end of this year, his timeline was literally dismissed by people who assumed they knew better. Here is one quote: ``Trump promises coronavirus vaccine by the end of year,'' scoffed one headline, ``but his own experts temper expectations.'' ``Fact check'' complained another headline, ``Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a `miracle' to be right.'' Well, with the genius of science, support from Congress, and the bold leadership of the Trump administration, that medical miracle arrived right on schedule. Americans on the frontlines are receiving vaccinations as we speak. This episode offers a kind of microcosm of the last 4 years. On so many subjects--from economic prosperity to foreign policy, to protecting American families--the skeptics doubted him. The critics derided him. But President Trump has delivered. When President Trump ran for office, he promised to help open a new chapter for working families. After 8 years of failed policies that concentrated wealth and optimism among the lucky few, prosperity was going to flow to all kinds of workers in all kinds of communities, he said. And that is exactly what happened. Before this pandemic spread from China and the world had to slam on the brakes, the American people had the best job market in living memory. With help from the policies of President Trump and Republicans in Congress, American workers dynamited the stagnation that experts had said was ``the new normal.'' Unemployment hit a 50-year low. Capital markets hit record highs. And this time, all kinds of Americans got to share in the gains. We saw earnings grow faster for workers than for managers, faster for the bottom 25 than for the top 25. This success was fueled in part by the policy leadership of President Trump. This administration pursued bold regulatory changes. Once-in-a-generation tax reform had eluded prior leaders. This President signed it into law in his first year. And together we repealed the worst part of ObamaCare. The unfair individual mandate was zeroed out. President Trump also took historic steps to strengthen the future of ourtrade with the world. He secured the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the bilateral tax treaties with partners in Europe and in Asia. A nation this productive needs plenty of energy to keep it going. Fortunately, President Trump and his administration ended the ideological war on fossil fuels and hit the accelerator on ``all of the above'' American energy dominance. In the last 4 years, we surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production. We saw energy exports exceed energy imports for the first year in almost 70 years. Meanwhile, we saw CO2 emissions fall, along with other harmful pollutants. That energy independence has dramatically strengthened our hand with respect to the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East. So speaking of the Middle East, President Trump wasted little time pulling back from the prior administration's disastrous ``Iran deal.'' His team eliminated daylight between us and Israel and repaired our relationships with Arab partners. And he aligned these relationships around our common shared interests--countering threats like radical Islamic terrorists and Iranian aggression. Under President Trump's command, our forces took terrorist leaders like al-Baghdadi and Soleimani off the battlefield. The physical caliphate that ISIS established on the previous President's watch was destroyed. All of this paved the way for the Abraham accords, the historic normalization of relationships between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and, most recently, Morocco. And the potential is there for more on the horizon. Now, the Middle East isn't the only place where the Trump administration has shored up our footing on the world stage. Our 45th Commander in Chief sought out to rebuild and modernize our military and to move our foreign policy from a chapter of weakness and apology into a renewed posture of strength. Four years later, we have a new national defense strategy to compete with and deter adversaries like Russia and China. We have rebuilt the military and invested in new technologies to ensure America keeps our edge in everything from cyber to space, to advanced weapons system. The President's leadership does not stop with those who are currently serving. He also signed into law the historic VA MISSION Act to ensure our dedication to the men and women in uniform does not end when their tours conclude. So, clearly, the list of American accomplishments since 2016 is nearly endless. There are the many miles of new protections on our southern border. At one point, apprehensions at the border hit their lowest level since the 1970s. Essential causes, like religious liberty and the most vulnerable, the unborn, have had a champion in this administration instead of an adversary. There have been historic new steps to conserve our national treasures, like the Great American Outdoors Act. And perhaps most important of all, President Trump nominated--and this Senate confirmed--three outstanding Supreme Court Justices, along with more than 220 more article III Federal judges. These are brilliant, young, constitutionalist men and women in lifetime appointments who will renew the judiciary for a new generation--all because President Trump knows we need judges who respect the essential but limited job description the Framers wrote for our third branch of government. So as you can see, it would take far more than one speech to catalogue all the major wins the Trump administration has helped deliver for the American people. The outsider who swore he would shake up Washington and lead our country to new accomplishments both at home and abroad proceeded to do exactly that. President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence deserve our thanks and our gratitude for their tireless work and their essential roles in all of these victories and in many more. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7473-6 | null | 1,884 |
formal | food stamp | null | racist | Coronavirus Madam President, on a separate issue, I have given a big part of my life to this institution, the Senate, and I respect what we have been able to do on many occasions. Through honest give-and-take and compromise, we have been able to bring legislation to this floor to debate it, to consider amendments, to pass the legislation, and, ultimately, not only make a law but change the lives of Americans. We are at that moment where we need it again. And 10 of us--5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, as well as House Members--decided 3 weeks ago that enough was enough; we needed to show some leadership and try to work out a compromise between us for another COVID relief package. You see, it has been 9 months since we passed what was known as the CARES Act on the floor of the Senate, 96 to 0--overwhelming, unanimous, bipartisan decision--to spend about $3 trillion not only to fight the pandemic but to restore our economy. Thank goodness we did. It really gave us an opportunity to do something for America when it desperately needed it. We thought that the threat of the pandemic would soon ebb away, but it did not. It was not gone in 6 months, and it isn't gone today. In fact, in some places in America, it is worse now than ever. My State of Illinois, despite the heroic efforts of my Governor and many others, is suffering with infections, hospitalizations, and, sadly, too many deaths. That is the reality of where we are today. So this group of 10--5 Democrats, 5 Republicans--has been meeting for 3 weeks. We even met on Thanksgiving Day. We did a Zoom call and had some conversation about a phase of this that might be important for us to consider. I tell you that because we did produce a work product--one that I think is worthy of consideration immediately on the floor of the Senate. It was an effort to reach a spending target of $908 billion to provide immediate assistance across the board in the United States, to extend unemployment benefits where they are desperately needed; to give help to businesses--some $300 billion in new lending authority; to provide additional funds for SNAP, the food stamp program, which many desperate families turn to in order to feed their children; help to our farmers; help to the renters who would be facing eviction under their leases if we were to do nothing; help to hospitals and nursing homes and clinics, for we all know they are on the frontline of this battle; money for the testing of those who suspect they are infected with COVID-19; and more resources for the logistics of vaccinations. The CDFI Program is an effort to extend lending authority, particularly in desperate communities that are battling both poverty as well as this pandemic. There is $5 billion for mental health, and we certainly know we need it, for the psychological pressure that America is facing is obvious in so many ways. There is over $80 billion in education and $10 billion in childcare. We can't overlook the fact that many can't return to work because there is no childcare that they trust with their kids. There is help, as well, for expanding broadband. As our kids have to turn to remote learning in many places in America, broadband has to become a fact of life across this Nation. There is $45 billion in the whole transportation system network that has been devastated by this economic downturn. There is $10 billion for those in our Postal Service. They are working harder than ever, and we want to make sure that the men and women of the Postal Service, who do such a remarkable job, know that we have their backs. There are also extensions of spending authority for the CARES Act. These are just a few of the things that we considered over the 3-week period, and we came up with a bill that spent $748 billion. There were two items that were not included in the base consensus bill because we couldn't reach a consensus on them. State and local government assistance I support completely. I know what my cities and my counties and what my State have gone through. They need help. We couldn't agree on including that in the package at this moment. I hope this changes even today. Finally, on the issue of liability and immunity from liability, this has been one that has been raised by Senator McConnell for months. He has basically said that nothing will move until he gets a provision, which I find objectionable, that was originally offered by Senator Cornyn. Here is what it comes down to: Should people be able to go to court if they believe that they have been harmed or that members of their family have died as a result of the wrongdoing of people during this COVID-19 pandemic? Some argue that businesses should not have that possibility hanging over their heads, and that is what Senator Cornyn used as a basis for his provision, which makes it almost impossible for anyone to recover for any losses during COVID-19. Others believe that we need to show an even-handed approach to this on both sides: If we are going to be fair to businesses that are legitimately, in good faith, trying to protect their employees and customers, we should also leave the possibility open that those who are responsible for their actions need to be held accountable in court. I think it is a simple and basic provision that there be equity on both sides, not just for plaintiffs but also for defendants. We tried mightily during the last several weeks, and I want to salute my colleagues who engaged directly in that effort: Angus King, of Maine; Tim Kaine, of Virginia; Chris Coons, of Delaware; Dick Blumenthal, of Connecticut; Maggie Hassan, of New Hampshire. We offered a variety of options that we thought were reasonable and served the purpose of justice, but we couldn't reach an agreement. The others on the Democratic side who were part of this overall effort deserve mention in the Record. I don't want to miss anyone, but I want to include, certainly, Joe Manchin, of West Virginia; Mark Warner, of Virginia; and Jeanne Shaheen, of New Hampshire. To all of them, I thank them for bringing forth this measure. Now it is going to be in the hands of leadership. I hope we can call it up this week. We should not go home without it I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7475 | null | 1,885 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Tribute to Cory Gardner Mr. President, now on one final matter, we are less than 1 month away from the biannual changing of the guard in Congress before we gavel out for the year. I want to say just a few comments about our friend from Colorado who will soon be leaving the Senate, Senator Cory Gardner. Senator Gardner has proudly represented the people of Colorado for 15 years, first in the State House, then in the House of Representatives, and now in the U.S. Senate. Once you get to know Cory, it is easy to see how this ``boy from Yuma'' became such a trusted voice for his home State. For starters, he is a prime example of what Ronald Reagan called a ``happy warrior.'' At the end of his speech in 1985, President Reagan spoke about the pursuit of high ideals like liberty, freedom, and fairness, and the reasons our country has to be hopeful and optimistic. He said: ``So, let us go forth with good cheer and stout hearts--happy warriors out to seize back a country and a world to freedom.'' Those qualities of ``good cheer and stout hearts'' could not be a more appropriate description of our friend from Colorado. Senator Gardner has maintained a very keen understanding of the challenges we have faced as a nation, and he channels his passion and his optimism in finding solutions to those challenges. There is no question that he does get results. In the 6 years he has been in the Senate, Cory has accomplished more than some Senators have accomplished in double or maybe even triple that time. He has been a strong voice on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has helped lead changes to counter some of the most pressing threats facing our country. He helped pass the first-ever sanctions on North Korea to denuclearize one of the most untethered states and nations in the world. He fought to hold China accountable for their gross human rights violations, specifically those targeting the Uighur people. He has led efforts to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Taiwan. But I think the accomplishments he is most proud of are those that hit much closer to home. Cory introduced legislation to designate 9-8-8 as a national suicide prevention and mental health hotline. It is impossible to know how many lives have been and will be saved by simply adopting this three-digit phone number. This last year, he led in the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, the largest conservation bill in a generation. A big factor in Cory's success has been his relationships with his fellow Senators--not those backroom transactional relationships you think of, perhaps, when you think about politics, but I mean real friendships with folks throughout the Capitol Complex. If there were a Mr. or Ms. Congeniality contest in Congress, Cory would win by a landslide. It is common to see him talking not only with Senators from both parties but staffers in other offices. He was once a staffer in Senator Wayne Allard's office. So he can identify with them, as well as the Capitol Police, and the countless men and women who keep Congress running, from cafeteria workers to cleaning staff. He greets every person with the same genuine smile and is glad to spend a few minutes chatting, asking about your family, holiday plans, or how someone's day is going. That sincerity--his willingness to listen and deal with people on such a human and personal level--is something we need more of, not less of, here in Washington, especially these days. So the Senate will miss our happy warrior and the trademark positivity he brings to even the most contentious debates. And while we are sad to see him go, I know this isn't the last we will hear of or see of Cory Gardner. The only thing more enduring than his energy is his drive to help people from all places and in all walks of life. So, while our colleagues are sad to bid farewell to our friend Cory, we know that Jaime, Alyson, Caitlyn, and Thatcher are all eager to have him back home in Yuma and see more of him and spend more time together. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7478 | null | 1,886 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Tribute to Doug Jones Mr. President, so my departing colleagues--and I like every single one of them. I will start with my good friend Senator Doug Jones. Throughout the years, I have gotten to know Doug, as so many of us have, as a colleague but more importantly, as a friend. These past few years have not been easy for anyone, but what they have called for are leaders who will do what is right and who are willing to show courage and take risks. One of those leaders is Doug Jones, a native of Fairfield, AL, and the son of a father who worked in the steel industry. My grandpa worked in the iron ore business underground. I know a little bit about this. Doug graduated from the University of Alabama and the University of Alabama Law School. Afterwards, he served as a top aide for his home State Senator Howell Heflin. I still remember Howell Heflin. Long after Walter Mondale had left government, I was working with him in Minnesota, and Howell Heflin would call for him, and the accent was a little hard for a Minnesotan to get through. I remember Mondale, literally within a few hours, howling with laughter when he took the call. I am sure he was a great mentor for Doug to have when he first got into politics. Doug then became the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, and in 2017 he became the first Democrat to represent Alabama in the U.S. Senate since 1997. I will never forget the first speech Doug gave on the Senate floor. It was about gun violence, calling for bipartisanship and pragmatism and for the courage to seize the moment. He actually quoted Senator Heflin, saying: Our Constitution itself came about through a series of great compromises; it was not written by ideologues who clung to their way or no way. Compromise and negotiation--the hallmarks of moderation--aimed at achieving moderate, centrist policies for our country should not be viewed as negatives. Doug believed in a simple philosophy when he was here: Never compromise your principles--and he certainly showed us that--but work with your colleagues, Democrat or Republican, to move our country forward. I remember what he said about gun safety in his maiden speech. He was hopeful that we may have reached a tipping point because ``our young men and women are awakening the conscience of America.'' That is something that Doug has done in his time in the U.S. Senate, and he showed it even before that when, as a prosecutor, he brought closure to the families of the four little girls killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing by prosecuting those who sought to use fear, hatred, and violence to inhibit the rights of others. He did that for his State because that was his job, but in so doing, he brought closure and justice for our Nation. We are all fortunate to call Doug a friend. He has been a champion for veterans. After the tax bill had a problem with survivor benefits for Gold Star families, it was Doug who introduced the bill to fix the problem and got it passed for those who had already made the ultimate sacrifice. It has truly been an honor and a privilege to work alongside Senator Jones. Integrity and decency--those are the words I think about when I think about Doug Jones, and he will be missed in this Senate. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7481-2 | null | 1,887 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Tribute to Pat Roberts Mr. President, my colleagues, Senator Pat Roberts, as we know, is the longest serving member of Congress in Kansas history. He leaves the Senate as a giant in his home State and a true champion for the people of Kansas. In his words, he is a Kansan ``through and through,'' born in Topeka, earning his journalism degree from Kansas State, and representing Kansas for 16 years in the House and 22 years in the Senate. I serve on the Agriculture Committee, and he has been my chairman. I have been proud to serve with him as a fellow farm-State Senator, where he has been a champion for the breadbasket of America, as Kansas is known. He has also worked tirelessly to honor those legendary Kansans who came before him. Earlier this year, Senator Roberts was there to cut the ribbon at the dedication of the Eisenhower Memorial, a monument he has been devoted to as chairman of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, and I know he is one of the few members of Congress who can actually say he met President Eisenhower. At the dedication, Senator Roberts remarked that ``Eisenhower understood one person's ability to chart his or her own course and change the course of the world.'' That is something Senator Roberts has done often, in a quiet manner. I have really admired the way he worked across the aisle with Senator Stabenow every day. They didn't always agree on everything, but they found common ground. I got to work with him on a number of issues--ensuring that our wheat growers would get sorely needed relief through the CARES program, making the Tax Code consistent with how farmers finance new equipment, and protecting our food supply chain through investments in science and research. When I think about the legacy Chairman Roberts will leave, I think about those investments in science and research through the creation of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research and the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. Both of these facilities will play a critical role in helping today's farmers and ranchers tackle the many challenges that they face. He has also been cochair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, working to ensure quality healthcare--not just in urban areas where it is so important but also in rural areas. We both come from families of newspapermen. Senator Roberts' great-grandfather, J.W. Roberts, founded the Oskaloosa Independent, the second oldest newspaper in Kansas. And my dad started at a Minneapolis paper as a sports reporter, where his main beat was the Minnesota Vikings. Maybe the things that we have in common stop there, but, certainly, that newspaper background is something we have talked about and shared. I will miss Senator Roberts' humor, and I will miss his good work and look forward to continuing to work with Senator Stabenow and Senator Boozman as leaders of the Agriculture Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7482-2 | null | 1,888 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Tribute to Michael B. Enzi Mr. President, next, my friend Senator Enzi. True collegiality and camaraderie have sometimes been hard to come by in Washington these past few years, and that is why I think about someone who never lets the temperature rise, who is always willing to find that common ground. As I heard him say and have heard him say many times before his closing speech here, in his words, ``I always believed we could agree on 80 percent of the issues and on 80 percent of each issue, and that if we focus on the 80 percent, we can do great things for the American people.'' I remember his saying that when he would work with Ted Kennedy--and their genuine friendship--and I remember he said that many times to me as we worked on bills together. One of the first bills that I worked on a few years coming in here was with Senator Enzi, and it was about our paramedics and using the experience that they had gained serving in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, making sure that when they came home, they could use that experience immediately and put it to work on being paramedics in our own country because we had a shortage, and we still do, and we wanted to respect that experience--so many of them in small towns where they would have to travel then to get the final degree they needed to be able to continue working as a paramedic. Mike and I wanted to make sure that experience they had in serving our country would be put to good use and would allow them to get those degrees faster. I was also fortunate to work with Mike on trying to turn the page on U.S.-Cuba policy and forge a new path. He was always willing to work with me on that and be one of the cosponsors of my bill to lift the embargo--something that I hope will eventually get done in his honor, as he understood that the way to get to democratic change in Cuba was by enhancing our relationship and that the Cuban people did not necessarily share the same views--and many of them do not--of their government and that so many people in Cuba love America and that it was very important for us to improve that relationship. As chair of the Budget Committee--and one of only two accountants in the Senate--Senator Enzi has also been dedicated to addressing our deficit and debt challenges. He has long urged the Federal Government to move to biannual budgeting, something that I support, as well, and something that my friend Jeanne Shaheen has been working with him on. Senator Enzi has a lot of smart proposals that he has put forward. I mostly, though, will remember his spirit--his spirit that we saw, and see, every week at the Prayer Breakfast--of course, he can still come back to that as a former Member--but also the work that he did in the Senate and how he would genuinely try to find common ground. I have told him many times how much I love his State, having once bicycled from Minneapolis to Jackson Hole to get there--1,200 miles in 11 days with my dad--and when my husband and I, in the middle of the pandemic, decided to drive one place this summer, we drove to Wyoming and hiked in the Tetons. So I look forward and I hope to see Mike and Diana there, and my hope for him is all the best in his retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7483 | null | 1,889 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | Tribute to Michael B. Enzi Madam President, Mike Enzi, of Wyoming, is retiring after 24 years. Mike is an unassuming fellow. He is the only accountant in the Senate. He is impossible to defeat in Wyoming, apparently, because he drives 200 or 300 miles every weekend to every ice cream social that was invented, and if it had not been invented, he and Diana created it. While he has been here, he has created the 80-percent rule, which says: Let's not argue about the 20 percent we disagree on, and let's look for the 80 percent we can work together on. He was persistent in his work in the Marketplace Fairness Act, which kept the Federal Government from telling States what to tax and what not to tax and allowed the States to collect sales tax for goods that were sold in their States from out of State. That passed the Senate thanks to Mike's work. It didn't pass the House, but the Senate agreed with Senator Enzi, and most States are grateful in this COVID period of time to have their revenues enhanced by the work of Mike Enzi. The Perkins Act--helping to create a better workforce in the United States--was a difficult bill to pass, but Mike Enzi was the one who put it together. Of course, he left his opportunity to be chairman of the committee I now chair--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--so that he could be the chairman of the Budget Committee. While there, he worked hard to solve a problem that still needs to be solved--that of balancing our Federal budget, which, in the end, will require our finding a fair way to control the growth of entitlements. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7484-7 | null | 1,890 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Tribute to Michael B. Enzi Madam President, Mike Enzi, of Wyoming, is retiring after 24 years. Mike is an unassuming fellow. He is the only accountant in the Senate. He is impossible to defeat in Wyoming, apparently, because he drives 200 or 300 miles every weekend to every ice cream social that was invented, and if it had not been invented, he and Diana created it. While he has been here, he has created the 80-percent rule, which says: Let's not argue about the 20 percent we disagree on, and let's look for the 80 percent we can work together on. He was persistent in his work in the Marketplace Fairness Act, which kept the Federal Government from telling States what to tax and what not to tax and allowed the States to collect sales tax for goods that were sold in their States from out of State. That passed the Senate thanks to Mike's work. It didn't pass the House, but the Senate agreed with Senator Enzi, and most States are grateful in this COVID period of time to have their revenues enhanced by the work of Mike Enzi. The Perkins Act--helping to create a better workforce in the United States--was a difficult bill to pass, but Mike Enzi was the one who put it together. Of course, he left his opportunity to be chairman of the committee I now chair--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--so that he could be the chairman of the Budget Committee. While there, he worked hard to solve a problem that still needs to be solved--that of balancing our Federal budget, which, in the end, will require our finding a fair way to control the growth of entitlements. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7484-7 | null | 1,891 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Tribute to Doug Jones Madam President, Doug Jones only served for a short period of time, like Martha McSally, but he made his mark as well. When he gave his farewell address, I was here, and I said he reminded me of Ted Kennedy in this way: He kept his liberal principles. I didn't ever see him deviate from them, just like Ted Kennedy. He would stand back there and roar about this, that, or the other and make great fodder for the Republican Lincoln Day Dinners and Reagan Day Dinners in Tennessee. I used to say, when I was elected, if they had elected my opponent, my opponent would have come up here and moved Fred Thompson's desk over, and he would have set it right down between Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and made it one vote harder for George W. Bush to have led our country and represent our values. The Republicans liked that because they heard Ted Kennedy's liberal speeches, but I also said, when I made my maiden address, that, without my knowing it, Senator Kennedy had gone around and gotten 20 Democratic cosponsors. He was always working to get a result where he could. Doug Jones has been the same way here, and I want to congratulate him for that. He had a distinguished record in civil rights in Alabama--a courageous record--in prosecuting the Klansmen. He worked with Tim Scott, Senator Patty Murray, and me--with Senator Tim Scott last year to permanently fund historically Black colleges, which was a goal that had been sought for many years--and he took a big step on simplifying the FAFSA, the Federal aid application form that 20 million American families fill out every year. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7484-9 | null | 1,892 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Tribute to Doug Jones Madam President, Doug Jones only served for a short period of time, like Martha McSally, but he made his mark as well. When he gave his farewell address, I was here, and I said he reminded me of Ted Kennedy in this way: He kept his liberal principles. I didn't ever see him deviate from them, just like Ted Kennedy. He would stand back there and roar about this, that, or the other and make great fodder for the Republican Lincoln Day Dinners and Reagan Day Dinners in Tennessee. I used to say, when I was elected, if they had elected my opponent, my opponent would have come up here and moved Fred Thompson's desk over, and he would have set it right down between Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and made it one vote harder for George W. Bush to have led our country and represent our values. The Republicans liked that because they heard Ted Kennedy's liberal speeches, but I also said, when I made my maiden address, that, without my knowing it, Senator Kennedy had gone around and gotten 20 Democratic cosponsors. He was always working to get a result where he could. Doug Jones has been the same way here, and I want to congratulate him for that. He had a distinguished record in civil rights in Alabama--a courageous record--in prosecuting the Klansmen. He worked with Tim Scott, Senator Patty Murray, and me--with Senator Tim Scott last year to permanently fund historically Black colleges, which was a goal that had been sought for many years--and he took a big step on simplifying the FAFSA, the Federal aid application form that 20 million American families fill out every year. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7484-9 | null | 1,893 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Remembering Karin Porter Karin Porter of Philadelphia spent 35 years as an investigator for the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which many know as the EEOC. As many people know, the EEOC is responsible for enforcing Federal anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and protecting workers and job applicants who have faced discrimination. Karin was from Philadelphia, as I mentioned, and she raised her granddaughter Krystin. According to Krystin, Karin loved to travel. She loved to swim and to dance, and she was an avid shopper. Everyone loved Karin, and she was always the life of the party. Karin got sick with COVID-19 right after her 69th birthday and died in April of this year. In remembering her grandmother, Krystin said: ``To know her, was to love her.'' Like so many families, as well, Karin's death was very sudden, and like too many others this year, all across our State and across the country, she has left behind a family in grief as they endure her passing. So we send our sympathies and condolences to Karin Porter's family. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7491-3 | null | 1,894 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Remembering Allan Cohen Third, we go from one end of our State to the other, from Philadelphia all the way to Pittsburgh, to talk about a third Pennsylvanian. This individual's name was Allan Cohen. Allan Cohen was a civil rights leader and advocate from Pittsburgh. He was 93 years old when he passed away on July 31 of this year. Allan spent his life fighting for justice. As a young adult, he traveled to Mississippi to help Black voters to register to vote. He was here in Washington to hear the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech in 1963, part of the great March on Washington that year. Allan was a lawyer. He went to the University of Pittsburgh, both for his undergraduate degree as well as for his law degree. He specialized in ``fighting for the underdog,'' as his son Norman said in Allan's obituary, taking on personal injury cases for blue-collar workers, just by way of one example. He was also a dedicated family man. Allan Cohen and his wife Lois were married for 66 years. They raised two sons. Allan's wife Lois contracted COVID-19 and has been fortunate to recover. Their family describes this couple as ``the perfect match.'' In retirement, Allan liked to audit classes at the University of Pittsburgh, his alma mater. He also liked to garden. His son Norm recalled ``the best vacations'' as a child, including a cross-country road trip. Once Norm and his brother Lawrence were grown up, they would take their father Allan and their mom Lois on vacations, instead, I guess as a way to return the favor for those vacations when they were young. Allan's family remembers him, of course, as a civil rights advocate and a skilled orator who loved to travel. In the words of his granddaughter Molly, as quoted in his obituary, ``What I admire most about my grandpa was his integrity and how he always made things light and fun.'' Molly went on to say: ``When things in the world are unjust, Grandpa always speaks up and does what he can to make a difference.'' In addition to his wife, sons, and granddaughter Molly, Allan left behind seven other grandchildren and one great-grandchild. So we are thinking today of Allan Cohen's family and offer our condolences and sympathies | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7491-4 | null | 1,895 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Cory Gardner may be one of the younger members of the Senate, but he has brought distinction and dedication to his work on behalf of Coloradans. His entire career has been anchored in legislative work, at the Federal and State levels, first as a Senate staffer and then in the Colorado House of Representatives, before his election to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. In both the State legislature and in the House of Representatives, he focused primarily on energy and agriculture legislation. He brought these priorities with him to Senate in 2015, through his work on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Commerce, Justice, and Science Committees. As a Senator, Senator Gardner has often worked across the aisle to find common ground and deliver for the people of the United States. One recent example was the enactment of the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which became law in August. This landmark bipartisan conservation legislation permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund, supports and creates countless jobs in conservation and outdoor recreation, and protects our country's natural beauty. Through the negotiation and passage of this bill, Senator Gardner was at the table, trying to reach consensus and bring about meaningful benefits for the American people. That is no easy task and one which is not undertaken often in the Senate these days. Senator Gardner will leave the Senate at the end of this Congress, but I know his dedication to public service will remain. Marcelle and I wish Senator Gardner, his wife Alyson, and the rest of their family the very best in the next chapter of their lives. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7495-3 | null | 1,896 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a nation, today we find ourselves contemplating the key tenets upon which our country was founded: the importance of truth and equality, the pursuit of justice, and the determination of what is right. Doug Jones has pursued justice and has fought for equality and for what is right for his entire career. Doug is one of the most dedicated, thoughtful and decent public servants I have ever had the privilege to know and work with in my time in the Senate. He leaves the Senate having only furthered that record of public service. Doug brought with him to the Senate a passion for civil rights and for resolving prior injustices. As U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, he fought against entrenched racial injustice. He prosecuted the men responsible for the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church: and indicted domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph. In the Senate, he continued the pursuit of justice as a vocal advocate for greater government transparency and authored legislation that has expanded access to criminal investigation records for civil rights cases, helping families and individuals to resolve injustices after decades of inaction. I am certain that, even as he leaves the Senate, Doug will continue to represent and to fight for what is right. His has been an important and uniquely qualified voice for justice voice in the Senate these last few years, and I will miss his sound judgment and thoughtful advocacy. I know his long record of public service will only continue. Marcelle and I wish Doug and his wife Louise and their entire family all the best. I have great respect for him. He is one of the most impressive Senators I have served with, and I am so proud of all he has accomplished | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7495-4 | null | 1,897 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to honor a member of my staff, Mark LeDuc, who will soon retire after decades of distinguished service. Mark exemplifies the ideal public servant, demonstrating integrity, thoroughness, a spirit of inquiry, and hard work in every undertaking. Above all, Mark has always demonstrated his belief that it is an honor to serve the people of Maine and our Nation. Mark was born in New Jersey, but his father's final tour of duty in the U.S. Navy brought the family to Maine, where they were finally home. I first met Mark in 1986 at a campaign event for then-Representative John McKernan, who was running for Governor of the State of Maine. He had recently graduated from a joint degree program at Columbia Law School and the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He had just moved back to Maine with his wife Marie, whom he had met while they were both studying at Princeton. Mark and I both went on to work in the Governor McKernan's administration. Mark served as head of the Governor's legislative staff, and I was commissioner of professional and financial regulation in his cabinet. At the time, Maine's workers compensation market was in the midst of a crisis, leading to a 17-day State government shutdown. Mark and I worked closely together on the reform legislation that ended the shutdown and successfully resolved the crisis. Mark held other roles in State government, but it was during his service in the Governor's office that I first saw and came to appreciate his ability to master complex issues and his dedication to public service. Mark joined my Senate staff in 2003. He has served in various roles since that time, first in my personal office, then on my Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee staff, and now as chief counsel on my Aging Committee staff. Through the years, Mark has advised me with expertise and thoroughness on a wide range of issues. He served as my lead economic staffer on such legislation as the 2003 tax cuts, the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform legislation, and the Collins capital standards amendment. He also advised me on the economics of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and later put his knowledge of State insurance regulation to work when he helped me to draft the Lower Premiums Through Reinsurance Act. Mark's most significant professional accomplishment may very well be the Paycheck Protection Program that he helped me craft earlier this year. During the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, this program has helped to sustain more than 50 million American jobs, including more than 250,000 jobs in the State of Maine, and I so appreciate the great knowledge and untiring energy he put into this crucial project. It was important, and it helped real people--the small business owners and their employees who are the backbone of communities across our Nation. Mark has achieved great professional success, but what he is most proud of is his family. Mark and Marie have three daughters: Miriam-Rose, Julie, and Karen. While I am delighted for him that in his retirement he will have more time to spend with the family he loves so dearly, his absence as a member of my staff will be deeply felt. Mark is a true public servant. He performs his work not for accolades but for a belief in helping people and doing what right. I wish him and his family all the best as they embark on this next chapter. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7498-2 | null | 1,898 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to honor a member of my staff, Mark LeDuc, who will soon retire after decades of distinguished service. Mark exemplifies the ideal public servant, demonstrating integrity, thoroughness, a spirit of inquiry, and hard work in every undertaking. Above all, Mark has always demonstrated his belief that it is an honor to serve the people of Maine and our Nation. Mark was born in New Jersey, but his father's final tour of duty in the U.S. Navy brought the family to Maine, where they were finally home. I first met Mark in 1986 at a campaign event for then-Representative John McKernan, who was running for Governor of the State of Maine. He had recently graduated from a joint degree program at Columbia Law School and the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He had just moved back to Maine with his wife Marie, whom he had met while they were both studying at Princeton. Mark and I both went on to work in the Governor McKernan's administration. Mark served as head of the Governor's legislative staff, and I was commissioner of professional and financial regulation in his cabinet. At the time, Maine's workers compensation market was in the midst of a crisis, leading to a 17-day State government shutdown. Mark and I worked closely together on the reform legislation that ended the shutdown and successfully resolved the crisis. Mark held other roles in State government, but it was during his service in the Governor's office that I first saw and came to appreciate his ability to master complex issues and his dedication to public service. Mark joined my Senate staff in 2003. He has served in various roles since that time, first in my personal office, then on my Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee staff, and now as chief counsel on my Aging Committee staff. Through the years, Mark has advised me with expertise and thoroughness on a wide range of issues. He served as my lead economic staffer on such legislation as the 2003 tax cuts, the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform legislation, and the Collins capital standards amendment. He also advised me on the economics of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and later put his knowledge of State insurance regulation to work when he helped me to draft the Lower Premiums Through Reinsurance Act. Mark's most significant professional accomplishment may very well be the Paycheck Protection Program that he helped me craft earlier this year. During the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, this program has helped to sustain more than 50 million American jobs, including more than 250,000 jobs in the State of Maine, and I so appreciate the great knowledge and untiring energy he put into this crucial project. It was important, and it helped real people--the small business owners and their employees who are the backbone of communities across our Nation. Mark has achieved great professional success, but what he is most proud of is his family. Mark and Marie have three daughters: Miriam-Rose, Julie, and Karen. While I am delighted for him that in his retirement he will have more time to spend with the family he loves so dearly, his absence as a member of my staff will be deeply felt. Mark is a true public servant. He performs his work not for accolades but for a belief in helping people and doing what right. I wish him and his family all the best as they embark on this next chapter. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-15-pt1-PgS7498-2 | null | 1,899 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.