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 | based | null | white supremacist | The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, December 21, 2020, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: S. 212. An act to amend the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000, the Buy Indian Act, and the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to provide industry and economic development opportunities to Indian communities. S. 461. An act to strengthen the capacity and competitiveness of historically Black colleges and universities through robust public-sector, private-sector, and community partnerships and engagement, and for other purposes. S. 900. 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. S. 906. An act to improve the management of driftnet fishing. S. 914. An act to reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009, to clarify the authority of the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with respect to post-storm assessments, and to require the establishment of a National Water Center, and for other purposes. S. 979. An act to amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to incorporate the recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office relating to advance contracts, and for other purposes. 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. S. 1342. An act to require the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere to update periodically the environmental sensitivity index products of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for each coastal area of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes. S. 1694. An act to require the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to add recommendations and inform other relevant agencies of information relating to the principle of due regard and the limitation of harmful interference with Apollo landing site artifacts, and for other purposes. S. 1869. An act to require the disclosure of ownership of high-security space leased to accommodate a Federal agency, and for other purposes. S. 2174. An act to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Act, the Attorney General is authorized to use funds appropriated for the operationalization, maintenance, and expansion of the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) for the purpose of carrying out this Act. S. 2216. An act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to formally recognize caregivers of veterans, notify veterans and caregivers of clinical determinations relating to eligibility for the family caregiver program, and temporarily extend benefits for veterans who are determined ineligible for the family caregiver program, and for other purposes. S. 2472. An act to redesignate the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Plum Brook Station, Ohio, as the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility. S. 2683. An act to establish a task force to assist States in implementing hiring requirements for child care staff members to improve child safety. S. 2730. An act to establish and ensure an inclusive and transparent Drone Advisory Committee. 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 ``Einar `Sarge' H. lngman, Jr. Post Office Building''. S. 3312. An act to establish a crisis stabilization and community reentry grant program, and for other purposes. S. 3418. An act 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. 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. 3989. An act to amend the United States Semiquincentennial Commission Act of 2016 to modify certain membership and other requirements of the United States Semiquincentennial Commission, and for other purposes. 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''. S. 5036. An act to amend the Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016 to extend the Secret Service overtime pay exception through 2023, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-21-pt1-PgS7939 | null | 2,000 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, December 21, 2020, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: S. 212. An act to amend the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000, the Buy Indian Act, and the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to provide industry and economic development opportunities to Indian communities. S. 461. An act to strengthen the capacity and competitiveness of historically Black colleges and universities through robust public-sector, private-sector, and community partnerships and engagement, and for other purposes. S. 900. 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. S. 906. An act to improve the management of driftnet fishing. S. 914. An act to reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009, to clarify the authority of the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with respect to post-storm assessments, and to require the establishment of a National Water Center, and for other purposes. S. 979. An act to amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to incorporate the recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office relating to advance contracts, and for other purposes. 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. S. 1342. An act to require the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere to update periodically the environmental sensitivity index products of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for each coastal area of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes. S. 1694. An act to require the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to add recommendations and inform other relevant agencies of information relating to the principle of due regard and the limitation of harmful interference with Apollo landing site artifacts, and for other purposes. S. 1869. An act to require the disclosure of ownership of high-security space leased to accommodate a Federal agency, and for other purposes. S. 2174. An act to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Act, the Attorney General is authorized to use funds appropriated for the operationalization, maintenance, and expansion of the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) for the purpose of carrying out this Act. S. 2216. An act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to formally recognize caregivers of veterans, notify veterans and caregivers of clinical determinations relating to eligibility for the family caregiver program, and temporarily extend benefits for veterans who are determined ineligible for the family caregiver program, and for other purposes. S. 2472. An act to redesignate the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Plum Brook Station, Ohio, as the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility. S. 2683. An act to establish a task force to assist States in implementing hiring requirements for child care staff members to improve child safety. S. 2730. An act to establish and ensure an inclusive and transparent Drone Advisory Committee. 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 ``Einar `Sarge' H. lngman, Jr. Post Office Building''. S. 3312. An act to establish a crisis stabilization and community reentry grant program, and for other purposes. S. 3418. An act 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. 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. 3989. An act to amend the United States Semiquincentennial Commission Act of 2016 to modify certain membership and other requirements of the United States Semiquincentennial Commission, and for other purposes. 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''. S. 5036. An act to amend the Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016 to extend the Secret Service overtime pay exception through 2023, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-21-pt1-PgS7939 | null | 2,001 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the following bills were signed by Speaker Pro Tempore Beyer on Monday, December 21, 2020: H.R. 1240, to preserve United States fishing heritage through a national program dedicated to training and assisting the next generation of commercial fishermen; H.R. 1520, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes; H.R. 4031, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes; H.R. 5458, to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes; H.R. 5852, to redesignate the Weir Farm National Historic Site in the State of Connecticut as the ``Weir Farm National Historical Park''; H.R. 6535, 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; H.R. 7460, to extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was founded, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-12-24-pt1-PgH9149-8 | null | 2,002 |
formal | urban | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the following bills were signed by Speaker Pro Tempore Beyer on Monday, December 21, 2020: H.R. 1240, to preserve United States fishing heritage through a national program dedicated to training and assisting the next generation of commercial fishermen; H.R. 1520, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes; H.R. 4031, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes; H.R. 5458, to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes; H.R. 5852, to redesignate the Weir Farm National Historic Site in the State of Connecticut as the ``Weir Farm National Historical Park''; H.R. 6535, 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; H.R. 7460, to extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was founded, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-12-24-pt1-PgH9149-8 | null | 2,003 |
formal | election integrity | null | racist | FISCAL YEAR 2021--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 116-174) The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:To the House of Representatives: I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 6395, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (the ``Act''). My Administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security. Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military's history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions. It is a ``gift'' to China and Russia. No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, than I have--over $2 trillion. During my 4 years, with the support of many others, we have almost entirely rebuilt the United States military, which was totally depleted when I took office. Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step. The Act fails even to make any meaningful changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, despite bipartisan calls for repealing that provision. Section 230 facilitates the spread of foreign disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It must be repealed. Additionally, the Act includes language that would require the renaming of certain military installations. Over the course of United States history, these locations have taken on significance to the American story and those who have helped write it that far transcends their namesakes. My Administration respects the legacy of the millions of American servicemen and women who have served with honor at these military bases, and who, from these locations, have fought, bled, and died for their country. From these facilities, we have won two World Wars. I have been clear in my opposition to politically motivated attempts like this to wash away history and to dishonor the immense progress our country has fought for in realizing our founding principles. The Act also restricts the President's ability to preserve our Nation's security by arbitrarily limiting the amount of military construction funds that can be used to respond to a national emergency. In a time when adversaries have the means to directly attack the homeland, the President must be able to safeguard the American people without having to wait for congressional authorization. The Act also contains an amendment that would slow down the rollout of nationwide 5G, especially in rural areas. Numerous provisions of the Act directly contradict my Administration's foreign policy, particularly my efforts to bring our troops home. I oppose endless wars, as does the American public. Over bipartisan objections, however, this Act purports to restrict the President's ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea. Not only is this bad policy, but it is unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and vests in him the executive power. Therefore, the decision regarding how many troops to deploy and where, including in Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea, rests with him. The Congress may not arrogate this authority to itself directly or indirectly as purported spending restrictions. For all of these reasons, I cannot support this bill. My Administration has taken strong actions to help keep our Nation safe and support our service members. I will not approve this bill, which would put the interests of the Washington, D.C. establishment over those of the American people. It is my duty to return H.R. 6395 to the House of Representatives without my approval. Donald J. Trump. The White House, December 23, 2020. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-12-24-pt1-PgH9150-2 | null | 2,004 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | FISCAL YEAR 2021--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 116-174) The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto message from the President of the United States:To the House of Representatives: I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 6395, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (the ``Act''). My Administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security. Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military's history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions. It is a ``gift'' to China and Russia. No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, than I have--over $2 trillion. During my 4 years, with the support of many others, we have almost entirely rebuilt the United States military, which was totally depleted when I took office. Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step. The Act fails even to make any meaningful changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, despite bipartisan calls for repealing that provision. Section 230 facilitates the spread of foreign disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It must be repealed. Additionally, the Act includes language that would require the renaming of certain military installations. Over the course of United States history, these locations have taken on significance to the American story and those who have helped write it that far transcends their namesakes. My Administration respects the legacy of the millions of American servicemen and women who have served with honor at these military bases, and who, from these locations, have fought, bled, and died for their country. From these facilities, we have won two World Wars. I have been clear in my opposition to politically motivated attempts like this to wash away history and to dishonor the immense progress our country has fought for in realizing our founding principles. The Act also restricts the President's ability to preserve our Nation's security by arbitrarily limiting the amount of military construction funds that can be used to respond to a national emergency. In a time when adversaries have the means to directly attack the homeland, the President must be able to safeguard the American people without having to wait for congressional authorization. The Act also contains an amendment that would slow down the rollout of nationwide 5G, especially in rural areas. Numerous provisions of the Act directly contradict my Administration's foreign policy, particularly my efforts to bring our troops home. I oppose endless wars, as does the American public. Over bipartisan objections, however, this Act purports to restrict the President's ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea. Not only is this bad policy, but it is unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and vests in him the executive power. Therefore, the decision regarding how many troops to deploy and where, including in Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea, rests with him. The Congress may not arrogate this authority to itself directly or indirectly as purported spending restrictions. For all of these reasons, I cannot support this bill. My Administration has taken strong actions to help keep our Nation safe and support our service members. I will not approve this bill, which would put the interests of the Washington, D.C. establishment over those of the American people. It is my duty to return H.R. 6395 to the House of Representatives without my approval. Donald J. Trump. The White House, December 23, 2020. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-12-24-pt1-PgH9150-2 | null | 2,005 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | 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. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3742. A bill to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to make supplemental funds available for management of fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need as determined by State fish and wildlife agencies, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-685, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 5187. A bill to facilitate the development of affordable housing, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-686). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 5534. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for extended months of Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplant patients, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-687, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NEAL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 2113. A bill to amend title XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for drug manufacturer price transparency, to require certain manufacturers to report on product samples provided to certain health care providers, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-688, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3225. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to make certain adjustments in leasing on Federal lands for oil and gas drilling, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-689, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NEAL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3414. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the distribution of additional residency positions to help combat the opioid crisis; with an amendment (Rept. 116-690, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NEAL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3417. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for patient improvements and rural and quality improvements under the Medicare program; with an amendment (Rept. 116-691, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 7539. A bill to strengthen parity in mental health and substance use disorder benefits; with an amendment (Rept. 116-692, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NADLER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 2375. A bill to prohibit prescription drug companies from compensating other prescription drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug, biosimilar biological product, or interchangeable biological product into the market (Rept. 116-693, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NADLER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 2374. A bill to enable the Federal Trade Commission to deter filing of sham citizen petitions to cover an attempt to interfere with approval of a competing generic drug or biosimilar, to foster competition and facilitate the efficient review of petitions filed in good faith to raise legitimate public heath concerns, and for other purposes (Rept. 116-694). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NADLER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 5133. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to prohibit anticompetitive behaviors by drug product manufacturers, and for other purposes (Rept. 116-695). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NEAL: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3439. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and title XI of the Social Security Act to extend appropriations and transfers to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund and to extend certain health insurance fees for such transfers, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-696, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 5201. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide coverage under the Medicare program of certain mental health telehealth services, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 116-697, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. discharge of committee Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged from further consideration. H.R. 2113 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged from further consideration. H.R. 2375 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Agriculture discharged from further consideration. H.R. 3225 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged from further consideration. H.R. 3414 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged from further consideration. H.R. 3417 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged from further consideration. H.R. 2375 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged from further consideration. H.R. 3439 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on the Budget discharged from further consideration. H.R. 3742 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Ways and Means discharged from further consideration. H.R. 5201 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Ways and Means discharged from further consideration. H.R. 5534 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Ways and Means and Education and Labor discharged from further consideration. H.R. 7539 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-12-24-pt1-PgH9151-4 | null | 2,006 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Beyer, on Monday, December 21, 2020: 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. 1520. An act making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5852. An act to redesignate the Weir Farm National Historic Site in the State of Connecticut as the ``Weir Farm National Historical Park''. H.R. 6535. An act 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. H.R. 7460. An act to extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was founded, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-12-24-pt1-PgH9151 | null | 2,007 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Beyer, on Monday, December 21, 2020: 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. 1520. An act making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021, and for other purposes. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5852. An act to redesignate the Weir Farm National Historic Site in the State of Connecticut as the ``Weir Farm National Historical Park''. H.R. 6535. An act 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. H.R. 7460. An act to extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was founded, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-12-24-pt1-PgH9151 | null | 2,008 |
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-2020-12-28-pt1-PgH9153-8 | null | 2,009 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question whether the House, on reconsideration, willpass the bill (H.R. 6395) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding. In accord with the Constitution, the yeas and nays are ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-12-28-pt1-PgH9163-2 | null | 2,010 |
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. 9051) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 for individuals, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2020-12-28-pt1-PgH9163 | null | 2,011 |
formal | Bernie Sanders | null | antisemitic | Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, this is our historic moment. We can see the suffering across our country. We can see how desperate people are. We can see how during this holiday season, the people are looking at the prospect, in the words of Tony Fauci, where the worst may be ahead of us for these families. The worst may yet to have been actually inflicted upon families and our country. Yet the Republicans are refusing to allow for a vote on giving each individual $2,000 in order to make it through the rest of this pandemic. Senator Sanders today speaks for the millions of Americans who are suffering through a devastating health crisis, an unemployment crisis, an eviction crisis, a hunger crisis, and a crisis of faith--faith that their leaders in this country will stand up and provide for Americans in their hour of need. Meanwhile, we here in Washington must confront a moral crisis: Why can't we keep working families from starving even as we stand ready to approve a massive defense bill? That is why I am here with my colleague Bernie Sanders to call for a simple vote to provide $2,000 in direct cash payments to Americans across our country. It is this simple. Just like they did in the House of Representatives, the Senate should have a vote--up or down, yes or no--on providing these increased cash payments to desperate Americans. We can get this done quickly and before the holiday if Leader McConnell will simply agree to do it. They already had this vote in the House, and 44 Republicans voted for it. Give the Republicans in the Senate the same opportunity to vote. We already know that many of them have already said they will vote for the $2,000 if they get a chance to vote. It is this simple. We can do this because a simple vote will just say that you want to provide a grand total of $2,000 to Americans who need it to pay the rent, to keep the electricity on, to buy diapers, to pay for lifesaving medication--just to survive this devastating pandemic. There are 44 House Republicans who voted for the $2,000 checks. I believe that the Republicans in this Chamber will do so as well, and President Trump has already made it very clear that he will sign the bill. So we can see where the opposition is. It is with the leadership of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. People across our country are falling ill and falling behind on their bills, and for the families of the hundreds of thousands who have died from coronavirus, the medical and funeral expenses are compounding their grief. They need money in their pockets. In Massachusetts, this past Sunday, we hit 100 deaths in a single day--the highest death toll our State has seen in a 24-hour period since the very beginning of this pandemic. In the week before Christmas, 21,000 new people in our State applied for unemployment benefits just as Donald Trump let these protections lapse before millions of Americans lost their benefits, and that is a tragedy. A $2,000 check is the most direct and effective mechanism for delivering economic relief right now to those who are barely holding on throughout this crisis, particularly low-income Americans, immigrant communities, and our gig and service workers--our essential workers. They need help. They have been helping our families, and we need to help their families. Right now, these checks would help 158 million people across our country pay for housing, put food on the table, and make sure that grandma and grandpa have their diabetes or heart medication. That is why Senator Sanders, Senator Kamala Harris, and I introduced legislation to provide every person in our country, regardless of immigration status, with $2,000 monthly recurring payments in order to help weather this storm. We knew then, 7 months ago, that a single $1,200 relief check was not going to be enough to help families get by, and the $600 payment in the latest coronavirus package is a crumb to the working people who have faced economic hardship through no fault of their own. It won't even cover a month of rent, let alone heating bills, food bills, Wi-Fi bills for students who are learning from home, and all of the other expenses that are piling up for these families. Now, some of my Republican colleagues have said that providing $2,000 would be too expensive. Well, here are some other costs they seem to have forgotten. If our proposal to increase stimulus checks to $2,000 is soaring, the overall cost of the stimulus bill would go from $900 billion to $1.36 trillion. Yes, that is a $464 billion increase over what we were currently projecting for this bill, but it is only a fraction of the $740 billion Defense bill that this Chamber stands ready to approve again this week. I hate to say this, but my Republican colleagues seem to be more interested in funding defense than in funding the defenseless, and that is what this debate is all about. What do we do to help these defenseless families? In this moment of national crisis, we were able to afford spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a bloated defense budget--spending that was supposed to protect our country yet did nothing to inoculate against the most profound public health emergency in a century--but we can't give hungry and suffering Americans $2,000? That is a moral failure for our country. Give Americans this money. Most of my colleagues support this defense budget. They got to vote on it a few weeks ago, and I know they stand ready to override President Trump's racist, belligerent veto. We are here today, asking the same thing for $2,000 payments--a simple up-or-down vote. Let's bring the House bill up for a vote. Leader Schumer is committed to bringing it forward. We can get this done before the holiday. We can do this for Americans before the year is out. We must remember that what makes America the envy of the world is not simply the strength of our defense and military but the strength of our people--people like Ahmed Jaya, a parent of three, who was laid off from his job as a doorman at the Omni Parker House in Boston this past March. Ahmed receives $400 a week in unemployment benefits, but it is not enough to cover the bills that keep rolling in as he now faces expiring health coverage as well. It is people like Tanya DiStefano, from Spencer, MA, who gave birth to a beautiful baby boy on Halloween, to return from the hospital to find an eviction notice taped to the front of her door. These are the stories that should be driving our fights. These are the people who need relief now. And these checks will go right back into our economy because people will spend this money. They need it for the necessities that are confronting their families right now. Last week, Donald Trump used these people as political pawns. He stalled signing the coronavirus relief package, claiming that he wanted to give $2,000 checks to every American. By delaying, President Trump may have stiffed unemployed Americans out of $300 this week in unemployment benefits--benefits that they will not get back. So let's now hold Donald Trump to his word. Let's bring this to a vote, and let's pass $2,000 relief checks for every person in our country and put that bill on Donald Trump's desk. This pandemic has laid bare the tragedy of two Americas--one in which billionaires have grown their wealth by $931 billion over the course of this pandemic, an America where the rich continue to get richer, and the other America that has seen unprecedented economic uncertainty, Great Depression-level unemployment rates, and devastating losses. It is one in which Blacks and LatinX workers suffer disproportionately higher rates of unemployment and their families suffer higher rates of coronavirus infection and death; where workers get laid off while CEOs get raises and companies engage in stock buyback plans; and where residents get evicted or their electricity shut off but major corporations barely pay taxes. For those workers and families and struggling households in America--for the very vast majority of America--$2,000 is a lifeline, and it is time for Leader McConnell to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote. The American people have a right to know where every Member of the Senate stands on this issue. They now know where President Trump says he stands, and they now know where every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives stands. The American people have a right to know, in this desperate time that we are living through, who was on their side to give their families the help they needed. Senator Sanders is right. We should have a vote--it should be yes or no--and we should do this before the end of this year. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7958-2 | null | 2,012 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, this is our historic moment. We can see the suffering across our country. We can see how desperate people are. We can see how during this holiday season, the people are looking at the prospect, in the words of Tony Fauci, where the worst may be ahead of us for these families. The worst may yet to have been actually inflicted upon families and our country. Yet the Republicans are refusing to allow for a vote on giving each individual $2,000 in order to make it through the rest of this pandemic. Senator Sanders today speaks for the millions of Americans who are suffering through a devastating health crisis, an unemployment crisis, an eviction crisis, a hunger crisis, and a crisis of faith--faith that their leaders in this country will stand up and provide for Americans in their hour of need. Meanwhile, we here in Washington must confront a moral crisis: Why can't we keep working families from starving even as we stand ready to approve a massive defense bill? That is why I am here with my colleague Bernie Sanders to call for a simple vote to provide $2,000 in direct cash payments to Americans across our country. It is this simple. Just like they did in the House of Representatives, the Senate should have a vote--up or down, yes or no--on providing these increased cash payments to desperate Americans. We can get this done quickly and before the holiday if Leader McConnell will simply agree to do it. They already had this vote in the House, and 44 Republicans voted for it. Give the Republicans in the Senate the same opportunity to vote. We already know that many of them have already said they will vote for the $2,000 if they get a chance to vote. It is this simple. We can do this because a simple vote will just say that you want to provide a grand total of $2,000 to Americans who need it to pay the rent, to keep the electricity on, to buy diapers, to pay for lifesaving medication--just to survive this devastating pandemic. There are 44 House Republicans who voted for the $2,000 checks. I believe that the Republicans in this Chamber will do so as well, and President Trump has already made it very clear that he will sign the bill. So we can see where the opposition is. It is with the leadership of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. People across our country are falling ill and falling behind on their bills, and for the families of the hundreds of thousands who have died from coronavirus, the medical and funeral expenses are compounding their grief. They need money in their pockets. In Massachusetts, this past Sunday, we hit 100 deaths in a single day--the highest death toll our State has seen in a 24-hour period since the very beginning of this pandemic. In the week before Christmas, 21,000 new people in our State applied for unemployment benefits just as Donald Trump let these protections lapse before millions of Americans lost their benefits, and that is a tragedy. A $2,000 check is the most direct and effective mechanism for delivering economic relief right now to those who are barely holding on throughout this crisis, particularly low-income Americans, immigrant communities, and our gig and service workers--our essential workers. They need help. They have been helping our families, and we need to help their families. Right now, these checks would help 158 million people across our country pay for housing, put food on the table, and make sure that grandma and grandpa have their diabetes or heart medication. That is why Senator Sanders, Senator Kamala Harris, and I introduced legislation to provide every person in our country, regardless of immigration status, with $2,000 monthly recurring payments in order to help weather this storm. We knew then, 7 months ago, that a single $1,200 relief check was not going to be enough to help families get by, and the $600 payment in the latest coronavirus package is a crumb to the working people who have faced economic hardship through no fault of their own. It won't even cover a month of rent, let alone heating bills, food bills, Wi-Fi bills for students who are learning from home, and all of the other expenses that are piling up for these families. Now, some of my Republican colleagues have said that providing $2,000 would be too expensive. Well, here are some other costs they seem to have forgotten. If our proposal to increase stimulus checks to $2,000 is soaring, the overall cost of the stimulus bill would go from $900 billion to $1.36 trillion. Yes, that is a $464 billion increase over what we were currently projecting for this bill, but it is only a fraction of the $740 billion Defense bill that this Chamber stands ready to approve again this week. I hate to say this, but my Republican colleagues seem to be more interested in funding defense than in funding the defenseless, and that is what this debate is all about. What do we do to help these defenseless families? In this moment of national crisis, we were able to afford spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a bloated defense budget--spending that was supposed to protect our country yet did nothing to inoculate against the most profound public health emergency in a century--but we can't give hungry and suffering Americans $2,000? That is a moral failure for our country. Give Americans this money. Most of my colleagues support this defense budget. They got to vote on it a few weeks ago, and I know they stand ready to override President Trump's racist, belligerent veto. We are here today, asking the same thing for $2,000 payments--a simple up-or-down vote. Let's bring the House bill up for a vote. Leader Schumer is committed to bringing it forward. We can get this done before the holiday. We can do this for Americans before the year is out. We must remember that what makes America the envy of the world is not simply the strength of our defense and military but the strength of our people--people like Ahmed Jaya, a parent of three, who was laid off from his job as a doorman at the Omni Parker House in Boston this past March. Ahmed receives $400 a week in unemployment benefits, but it is not enough to cover the bills that keep rolling in as he now faces expiring health coverage as well. It is people like Tanya DiStefano, from Spencer, MA, who gave birth to a beautiful baby boy on Halloween, to return from the hospital to find an eviction notice taped to the front of her door. These are the stories that should be driving our fights. These are the people who need relief now. And these checks will go right back into our economy because people will spend this money. They need it for the necessities that are confronting their families right now. Last week, Donald Trump used these people as political pawns. He stalled signing the coronavirus relief package, claiming that he wanted to give $2,000 checks to every American. By delaying, President Trump may have stiffed unemployed Americans out of $300 this week in unemployment benefits--benefits that they will not get back. So let's now hold Donald Trump to his word. Let's bring this to a vote, and let's pass $2,000 relief checks for every person in our country and put that bill on Donald Trump's desk. This pandemic has laid bare the tragedy of two Americas--one in which billionaires have grown their wealth by $931 billion over the course of this pandemic, an America where the rich continue to get richer, and the other America that has seen unprecedented economic uncertainty, Great Depression-level unemployment rates, and devastating losses. It is one in which Blacks and LatinX workers suffer disproportionately higher rates of unemployment and their families suffer higher rates of coronavirus infection and death; where workers get laid off while CEOs get raises and companies engage in stock buyback plans; and where residents get evicted or their electricity shut off but major corporations barely pay taxes. For those workers and families and struggling households in America--for the very vast majority of America--$2,000 is a lifeline, and it is time for Leader McConnell to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote. The American people have a right to know where every Member of the Senate stands on this issue. They now know where President Trump says he stands, and they now know where every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives stands. The American people have a right to know, in this desperate time that we are living through, who was on their side to give their families the help they needed. Senator Sanders is right. We should have a vote--it should be yes or no--and we should do this before the end of this year. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7958-2 | null | 2,013 |
formal | right to know | null | anti-GMO | Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, this is our historic moment. We can see the suffering across our country. We can see how desperate people are. We can see how during this holiday season, the people are looking at the prospect, in the words of Tony Fauci, where the worst may be ahead of us for these families. The worst may yet to have been actually inflicted upon families and our country. Yet the Republicans are refusing to allow for a vote on giving each individual $2,000 in order to make it through the rest of this pandemic. Senator Sanders today speaks for the millions of Americans who are suffering through a devastating health crisis, an unemployment crisis, an eviction crisis, a hunger crisis, and a crisis of faith--faith that their leaders in this country will stand up and provide for Americans in their hour of need. Meanwhile, we here in Washington must confront a moral crisis: Why can't we keep working families from starving even as we stand ready to approve a massive defense bill? That is why I am here with my colleague Bernie Sanders to call for a simple vote to provide $2,000 in direct cash payments to Americans across our country. It is this simple. Just like they did in the House of Representatives, the Senate should have a vote--up or down, yes or no--on providing these increased cash payments to desperate Americans. We can get this done quickly and before the holiday if Leader McConnell will simply agree to do it. They already had this vote in the House, and 44 Republicans voted for it. Give the Republicans in the Senate the same opportunity to vote. We already know that many of them have already said they will vote for the $2,000 if they get a chance to vote. It is this simple. We can do this because a simple vote will just say that you want to provide a grand total of $2,000 to Americans who need it to pay the rent, to keep the electricity on, to buy diapers, to pay for lifesaving medication--just to survive this devastating pandemic. There are 44 House Republicans who voted for the $2,000 checks. I believe that the Republicans in this Chamber will do so as well, and President Trump has already made it very clear that he will sign the bill. So we can see where the opposition is. It is with the leadership of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. People across our country are falling ill and falling behind on their bills, and for the families of the hundreds of thousands who have died from coronavirus, the medical and funeral expenses are compounding their grief. They need money in their pockets. In Massachusetts, this past Sunday, we hit 100 deaths in a single day--the highest death toll our State has seen in a 24-hour period since the very beginning of this pandemic. In the week before Christmas, 21,000 new people in our State applied for unemployment benefits just as Donald Trump let these protections lapse before millions of Americans lost their benefits, and that is a tragedy. A $2,000 check is the most direct and effective mechanism for delivering economic relief right now to those who are barely holding on throughout this crisis, particularly low-income Americans, immigrant communities, and our gig and service workers--our essential workers. They need help. They have been helping our families, and we need to help their families. Right now, these checks would help 158 million people across our country pay for housing, put food on the table, and make sure that grandma and grandpa have their diabetes or heart medication. That is why Senator Sanders, Senator Kamala Harris, and I introduced legislation to provide every person in our country, regardless of immigration status, with $2,000 monthly recurring payments in order to help weather this storm. We knew then, 7 months ago, that a single $1,200 relief check was not going to be enough to help families get by, and the $600 payment in the latest coronavirus package is a crumb to the working people who have faced economic hardship through no fault of their own. It won't even cover a month of rent, let alone heating bills, food bills, Wi-Fi bills for students who are learning from home, and all of the other expenses that are piling up for these families. Now, some of my Republican colleagues have said that providing $2,000 would be too expensive. Well, here are some other costs they seem to have forgotten. If our proposal to increase stimulus checks to $2,000 is soaring, the overall cost of the stimulus bill would go from $900 billion to $1.36 trillion. Yes, that is a $464 billion increase over what we were currently projecting for this bill, but it is only a fraction of the $740 billion Defense bill that this Chamber stands ready to approve again this week. I hate to say this, but my Republican colleagues seem to be more interested in funding defense than in funding the defenseless, and that is what this debate is all about. What do we do to help these defenseless families? In this moment of national crisis, we were able to afford spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a bloated defense budget--spending that was supposed to protect our country yet did nothing to inoculate against the most profound public health emergency in a century--but we can't give hungry and suffering Americans $2,000? That is a moral failure for our country. Give Americans this money. Most of my colleagues support this defense budget. They got to vote on it a few weeks ago, and I know they stand ready to override President Trump's racist, belligerent veto. We are here today, asking the same thing for $2,000 payments--a simple up-or-down vote. Let's bring the House bill up for a vote. Leader Schumer is committed to bringing it forward. We can get this done before the holiday. We can do this for Americans before the year is out. We must remember that what makes America the envy of the world is not simply the strength of our defense and military but the strength of our people--people like Ahmed Jaya, a parent of three, who was laid off from his job as a doorman at the Omni Parker House in Boston this past March. Ahmed receives $400 a week in unemployment benefits, but it is not enough to cover the bills that keep rolling in as he now faces expiring health coverage as well. It is people like Tanya DiStefano, from Spencer, MA, who gave birth to a beautiful baby boy on Halloween, to return from the hospital to find an eviction notice taped to the front of her door. These are the stories that should be driving our fights. These are the people who need relief now. And these checks will go right back into our economy because people will spend this money. They need it for the necessities that are confronting their families right now. Last week, Donald Trump used these people as political pawns. He stalled signing the coronavirus relief package, claiming that he wanted to give $2,000 checks to every American. By delaying, President Trump may have stiffed unemployed Americans out of $300 this week in unemployment benefits--benefits that they will not get back. So let's now hold Donald Trump to his word. Let's bring this to a vote, and let's pass $2,000 relief checks for every person in our country and put that bill on Donald Trump's desk. This pandemic has laid bare the tragedy of two Americas--one in which billionaires have grown their wealth by $931 billion over the course of this pandemic, an America where the rich continue to get richer, and the other America that has seen unprecedented economic uncertainty, Great Depression-level unemployment rates, and devastating losses. It is one in which Blacks and LatinX workers suffer disproportionately higher rates of unemployment and their families suffer higher rates of coronavirus infection and death; where workers get laid off while CEOs get raises and companies engage in stock buyback plans; and where residents get evicted or their electricity shut off but major corporations barely pay taxes. For those workers and families and struggling households in America--for the very vast majority of America--$2,000 is a lifeline, and it is time for Leader McConnell to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote. The American people have a right to know where every Member of the Senate stands on this issue. They now know where President Trump says he stands, and they now know where every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives stands. The American people have a right to know, in this desperate time that we are living through, who was on their side to give their families the help they needed. Senator Sanders is right. We should have a vote--it should be yes or no--and we should do this before the end of this year. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7958-2 | null | 2,014 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, this is our historic moment. We can see the suffering across our country. We can see how desperate people are. We can see how during this holiday season, the people are looking at the prospect, in the words of Tony Fauci, where the worst may be ahead of us for these families. The worst may yet to have been actually inflicted upon families and our country. Yet the Republicans are refusing to allow for a vote on giving each individual $2,000 in order to make it through the rest of this pandemic. Senator Sanders today speaks for the millions of Americans who are suffering through a devastating health crisis, an unemployment crisis, an eviction crisis, a hunger crisis, and a crisis of faith--faith that their leaders in this country will stand up and provide for Americans in their hour of need. Meanwhile, we here in Washington must confront a moral crisis: Why can't we keep working families from starving even as we stand ready to approve a massive defense bill? That is why I am here with my colleague Bernie Sanders to call for a simple vote to provide $2,000 in direct cash payments to Americans across our country. It is this simple. Just like they did in the House of Representatives, the Senate should have a vote--up or down, yes or no--on providing these increased cash payments to desperate Americans. We can get this done quickly and before the holiday if Leader McConnell will simply agree to do it. They already had this vote in the House, and 44 Republicans voted for it. Give the Republicans in the Senate the same opportunity to vote. We already know that many of them have already said they will vote for the $2,000 if they get a chance to vote. It is this simple. We can do this because a simple vote will just say that you want to provide a grand total of $2,000 to Americans who need it to pay the rent, to keep the electricity on, to buy diapers, to pay for lifesaving medication--just to survive this devastating pandemic. There are 44 House Republicans who voted for the $2,000 checks. I believe that the Republicans in this Chamber will do so as well, and President Trump has already made it very clear that he will sign the bill. So we can see where the opposition is. It is with the leadership of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. People across our country are falling ill and falling behind on their bills, and for the families of the hundreds of thousands who have died from coronavirus, the medical and funeral expenses are compounding their grief. They need money in their pockets. In Massachusetts, this past Sunday, we hit 100 deaths in a single day--the highest death toll our State has seen in a 24-hour period since the very beginning of this pandemic. In the week before Christmas, 21,000 new people in our State applied for unemployment benefits just as Donald Trump let these protections lapse before millions of Americans lost their benefits, and that is a tragedy. A $2,000 check is the most direct and effective mechanism for delivering economic relief right now to those who are barely holding on throughout this crisis, particularly low-income Americans, immigrant communities, and our gig and service workers--our essential workers. They need help. They have been helping our families, and we need to help their families. Right now, these checks would help 158 million people across our country pay for housing, put food on the table, and make sure that grandma and grandpa have their diabetes or heart medication. That is why Senator Sanders, Senator Kamala Harris, and I introduced legislation to provide every person in our country, regardless of immigration status, with $2,000 monthly recurring payments in order to help weather this storm. We knew then, 7 months ago, that a single $1,200 relief check was not going to be enough to help families get by, and the $600 payment in the latest coronavirus package is a crumb to the working people who have faced economic hardship through no fault of their own. It won't even cover a month of rent, let alone heating bills, food bills, Wi-Fi bills for students who are learning from home, and all of the other expenses that are piling up for these families. Now, some of my Republican colleagues have said that providing $2,000 would be too expensive. Well, here are some other costs they seem to have forgotten. If our proposal to increase stimulus checks to $2,000 is soaring, the overall cost of the stimulus bill would go from $900 billion to $1.36 trillion. Yes, that is a $464 billion increase over what we were currently projecting for this bill, but it is only a fraction of the $740 billion Defense bill that this Chamber stands ready to approve again this week. I hate to say this, but my Republican colleagues seem to be more interested in funding defense than in funding the defenseless, and that is what this debate is all about. What do we do to help these defenseless families? In this moment of national crisis, we were able to afford spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a bloated defense budget--spending that was supposed to protect our country yet did nothing to inoculate against the most profound public health emergency in a century--but we can't give hungry and suffering Americans $2,000? That is a moral failure for our country. Give Americans this money. Most of my colleagues support this defense budget. They got to vote on it a few weeks ago, and I know they stand ready to override President Trump's racist, belligerent veto. We are here today, asking the same thing for $2,000 payments--a simple up-or-down vote. Let's bring the House bill up for a vote. Leader Schumer is committed to bringing it forward. We can get this done before the holiday. We can do this for Americans before the year is out. We must remember that what makes America the envy of the world is not simply the strength of our defense and military but the strength of our people--people like Ahmed Jaya, a parent of three, who was laid off from his job as a doorman at the Omni Parker House in Boston this past March. Ahmed receives $400 a week in unemployment benefits, but it is not enough to cover the bills that keep rolling in as he now faces expiring health coverage as well. It is people like Tanya DiStefano, from Spencer, MA, who gave birth to a beautiful baby boy on Halloween, to return from the hospital to find an eviction notice taped to the front of her door. These are the stories that should be driving our fights. These are the people who need relief now. And these checks will go right back into our economy because people will spend this money. They need it for the necessities that are confronting their families right now. Last week, Donald Trump used these people as political pawns. He stalled signing the coronavirus relief package, claiming that he wanted to give $2,000 checks to every American. By delaying, President Trump may have stiffed unemployed Americans out of $300 this week in unemployment benefits--benefits that they will not get back. So let's now hold Donald Trump to his word. Let's bring this to a vote, and let's pass $2,000 relief checks for every person in our country and put that bill on Donald Trump's desk. This pandemic has laid bare the tragedy of two Americas--one in which billionaires have grown their wealth by $931 billion over the course of this pandemic, an America where the rich continue to get richer, and the other America that has seen unprecedented economic uncertainty, Great Depression-level unemployment rates, and devastating losses. It is one in which Blacks and LatinX workers suffer disproportionately higher rates of unemployment and their families suffer higher rates of coronavirus infection and death; where workers get laid off while CEOs get raises and companies engage in stock buyback plans; and where residents get evicted or their electricity shut off but major corporations barely pay taxes. For those workers and families and struggling households in America--for the very vast majority of America--$2,000 is a lifeline, and it is time for Leader McConnell to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote. The American people have a right to know where every Member of the Senate stands on this issue. They now know where President Trump says he stands, and they now know where every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives stands. The American people have a right to know, in this desperate time that we are living through, who was on their side to give their families the help they needed. Senator Sanders is right. We should have a vote--it should be yes or no--and we should do this before the end of this year. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7958-2 | null | 2,015 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, America has 600 billionaires. Now, $1 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money these days. President Trump just signed a bill, begrudgingly, that has $900 billion in it. But trust me--$1 billion is still a whole lot of money. It is actually so much money that it is really hard to find words to describe what it looks like, but let me try. If you are, for instance, one of the half a million Americans who make the minimum wage in this Nation and are lucky enough to work 40 hours a week, guess how many years you would have to work in order to get $1 billion. Five hundred years? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? No, you are not even close. If you make minimum wage in America today, you would need to work for 75,000 years in order to make $1 billion--75,000 years. Neanderthals were roaming the Earth 75,000 years ago. Those guys, if they had made minimum wage, would have had to have worked up until present day, every single day--that is, of course, if they hadn't spent a dime of the money they had made in order to accrue $1 billion. One billion dollars is a bananas amount of money, and there are 600 people in America today who make at least that amount of money or have that amount of money to their names. That is crazy. With $1 billion, you are leading a life that, frankly, none of us can really imagine, right? You have private planes. You have yachts. You have household staffs in the dozens. You have enough money to make sure that your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren and your great-great-grandchildren never have to work a day in their lives. Generations of your offspring can just live lives of indolent luxury, without a care, if they so choose. Do you know where I was 2 days before Thanksgiving this year? I was at Hamden Middle School, in my State, to help hand out free food for the unemployed, the poor, and the disabled ahead of a long holiday weekend. Those long weekends can be really hard, especially the ones that fall at the end of the month when the SNAP benefits have long run out. I got there as darkness fell but right at the beginning of the event. I noticed that down the hill from the roundabout at the school at which they were handing out the food, there was usually an empty parking lot. That night, at that moment, at the beginning of the event, that parking lot was lit up by hundreds of sets of headlights of hundreds of cars that were just sitting there, idle, in that parking lot. I asked the organizer of the event what was going on in that parking lot. Was there some other event happening that evening? Why all the cars? He told me: The cars started pulling into that lot hours ago. They got wind we were handing out food, and they got here early to make sure they didn't get left out. We have enough food for 300 people, and there were 300 cars in that lot before I even got here. That is what has happened during this pandemic. Millions of families all across this Nation, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs or have had their hours dramatically cut back. They have no savings because work doesn't pay in this country anymore. They spend everything they earn each month. So when the economy collapsed, virtually overnight in the spring, they got desperate--really fast. I want you to think about what it is really like on an hour-to-hour basis when you don't have enough money for food for your family. The decisions you have to make every single day are practically animalistic. Do you make your kids go hungry during the day, when they need the most energy, or do you skimp on dinner and force your kids to go to bed with hunger pangs? There are hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers who, right now, as I am speaking, are making that decision today. That is the reality of this pandemic. But here is another reality: Those 600 billionaires in this country? As it turns out, as a group, they lost nothing--nothing--during this pandemic. No, exactly the opposite. They got richer. The wealthiest 600 Americans collectively added $1 trillion to their bank accounts. Let me say it again. The richest 600 Americans gained $1 trillion over the course of 2020. Let's be clear. That is not money that grew in their money tree orchards. Yes, we are printing some more money these days, but wealth isn't far away from a zero-sum game still. So when we allow for 600 people in the country to control 50 percent of the Nation's wealth, that is coming out of your pocket. Six hundred people in a country of 328 million isn't a lot of people. But do you know what is a smaller number than 600? Fifty-two. There are 52 Republicans in this Chamber--52 people who are going to have a decision to make about what to do in a country where millions are literally starving as we speak, while 600 billionaires count the $1 trillion in additional wealth that they have accumulated during this period of national calamity. The question before these 52 Senate Republicans is simple. It is simple: Should we give $2,000 to low- and middle-income Americans right now to help them survive this crisis? That is the decision Senate Republicans have to make right now. Time is running out. Six hundred billionaires got $1 trillion richer this year, and the questionbefore Senate Republicans is this: Are you willing to spend an amount equal to just half of that windfall to America's billionaires in order to help 160 million Americans? Right now, the 52 Senate Republicans serving in this Chamber are the only thing standing in the way of $2,000 being sent to 160 million of our neediest citizens. The House passed the bill authorizing the checks in a big, bipartisan vote. It is hard to get two-thirds of the House of Representatives to agree on what time it is, but two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for the $2,000 checks. President Trump supports the $2,000 checks, so he will sign the bill if the Senate sends it to him. We can vote on the House bill today in a matter of hours if Senate Republicans agree. So why isn't this happening? Why didn't Senator McConnell announce the schedule for the vote on the $2,000 checks bill? Why didn't he agree to Senator Schumer's request to bring it up for an immediate vote? Now, a lot of Republicans are saying they object to the payments because they cost too much and they are going to add too much to the deficit. Well, frankly, spare me the fake righteous indignation about the deficit all of a sudden. Three years ago, these same deficit hawk Republicans passed a tax cut bill that, before the pandemic hit, had already added over $200 billion to the annual deficit, and that was a tax cut where 80 percent of the benefits went to the richest 1 percent of Americans. Warren Buffet wrote in his note to investors last year that the deficit-financed tax cuts earned his empire $29 billion overnight. That windfall, Buffet noted, ``did not come from anything we accomplished at Berkshire.'' So it is funny: Deficits just didn't matter to the 52 when it was tax cuts to the 600 richest people in America. But even if this Congress weren't ending in 5 days and we had time to figure out how to pay for it, do you know how we can't pay for it? Cutting foreign aid. President Trump has been talking a lot about foreign aid in the last week. Now, the money we spend on foreign aid, all supported by Democrats and Republicans over the years, all of it smart investments in our Nation's security--that actually wasn't in the COVID relief package. It was in the annual budget, as it always is. It just so happens that this year the COVID relief package and the annual budget were passed together. But just for argument's sake, let's say Trump got his way and every single dollar of foreign aid was cut out of the budget. Would that pay for the $2,000 checks? Not even close. President Trump apparently has an oversized impression of how much money we spend on foreign aid, because our annual foreign aid spending doesn't even equal 10 percent of the cost of a one-time $2,000 payment to low- and middle-income citizens. There is also some speculation that Senator McConnell is going to join together the $2,000 payments with other, much more controversial measures, much more complicated measures, like the reform of our internet liability laws. That is an invitation for this entire effort to fall apart. The House has finished voting. They have passed the $2,000 payment bill and sent it to us. They are not interested in taking up anything else. If we start adding poison pills to the $2,000 payment bill, that is just another way of telling the American people that this body doesn't support $2,000 payments. Listen, being a billionaire must be crazy. I make a lot of money as a Senator, but even I would have to work 7,500 years before my earnings equaled $1 billion. You know what was happening $7,500 years ago? The Stone Age. There isn't a good reason to oppose giving Americans who aren't billionaires a measly $2,000 check to help them put food on the table for their kids in the middle of this once-in-a-lifetime crisis. There isn't a good reason to choose to make moms and dads all across this country decide which two meals they will feed their kids each day because three meals are not an option. Two thousand dollars doesn't put dinner on the table every night, but, man, going to bed hungry when you are 11--it sucks. And even dealing with it every other night instead of every single night, no kid is going to turn that down. There are 52 of you, and in the next 24 to 48 hours, you get to decide: Do you protect the billionaires or do you choose to feed that 11-year-old kid? The only thing that stands between the American people and a $2,000 emergency survival check is 52 Senate Republicans. Got it? Understand? There is a bill pending right now before the Senate that gives $2,000 to ordinary Americans. Yes, it costs a lot of money, and maybe down the line we will have to ask the billionaires to pay for it, but the bill is here right now. The legislative session expires in 5 days. President Trump says he will sign it, and all that matters right now is what these 52 people decide. The House passed the bill with lots of Democratic and Republican support. The President supports the idea. The only thing that can stop $2,000 payments to struggling Americans right now is 52 Senate Republicans. Some things in Washington aren't that simple--but this is. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7959 | null | 2,016 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, America has 600 billionaires. Now, $1 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money these days. President Trump just signed a bill, begrudgingly, that has $900 billion in it. But trust me--$1 billion is still a whole lot of money. It is actually so much money that it is really hard to find words to describe what it looks like, but let me try. If you are, for instance, one of the half a million Americans who make the minimum wage in this Nation and are lucky enough to work 40 hours a week, guess how many years you would have to work in order to get $1 billion. Five hundred years? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? No, you are not even close. If you make minimum wage in America today, you would need to work for 75,000 years in order to make $1 billion--75,000 years. Neanderthals were roaming the Earth 75,000 years ago. Those guys, if they had made minimum wage, would have had to have worked up until present day, every single day--that is, of course, if they hadn't spent a dime of the money they had made in order to accrue $1 billion. One billion dollars is a bananas amount of money, and there are 600 people in America today who make at least that amount of money or have that amount of money to their names. That is crazy. With $1 billion, you are leading a life that, frankly, none of us can really imagine, right? You have private planes. You have yachts. You have household staffs in the dozens. You have enough money to make sure that your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren and your great-great-grandchildren never have to work a day in their lives. Generations of your offspring can just live lives of indolent luxury, without a care, if they so choose. Do you know where I was 2 days before Thanksgiving this year? I was at Hamden Middle School, in my State, to help hand out free food for the unemployed, the poor, and the disabled ahead of a long holiday weekend. Those long weekends can be really hard, especially the ones that fall at the end of the month when the SNAP benefits have long run out. I got there as darkness fell but right at the beginning of the event. I noticed that down the hill from the roundabout at the school at which they were handing out the food, there was usually an empty parking lot. That night, at that moment, at the beginning of the event, that parking lot was lit up by hundreds of sets of headlights of hundreds of cars that were just sitting there, idle, in that parking lot. I asked the organizer of the event what was going on in that parking lot. Was there some other event happening that evening? Why all the cars? He told me: The cars started pulling into that lot hours ago. They got wind we were handing out food, and they got here early to make sure they didn't get left out. We have enough food for 300 people, and there were 300 cars in that lot before I even got here. That is what has happened during this pandemic. Millions of families all across this Nation, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs or have had their hours dramatically cut back. They have no savings because work doesn't pay in this country anymore. They spend everything they earn each month. So when the economy collapsed, virtually overnight in the spring, they got desperate--really fast. I want you to think about what it is really like on an hour-to-hour basis when you don't have enough money for food for your family. The decisions you have to make every single day are practically animalistic. Do you make your kids go hungry during the day, when they need the most energy, or do you skimp on dinner and force your kids to go to bed with hunger pangs? There are hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers who, right now, as I am speaking, are making that decision today. That is the reality of this pandemic. But here is another reality: Those 600 billionaires in this country? As it turns out, as a group, they lost nothing--nothing--during this pandemic. No, exactly the opposite. They got richer. The wealthiest 600 Americans collectively added $1 trillion to their bank accounts. Let me say it again. The richest 600 Americans gained $1 trillion over the course of 2020. Let's be clear. That is not money that grew in their money tree orchards. Yes, we are printing some more money these days, but wealth isn't far away from a zero-sum game still. So when we allow for 600 people in the country to control 50 percent of the Nation's wealth, that is coming out of your pocket. Six hundred people in a country of 328 million isn't a lot of people. But do you know what is a smaller number than 600? Fifty-two. There are 52 Republicans in this Chamber--52 people who are going to have a decision to make about what to do in a country where millions are literally starving as we speak, while 600 billionaires count the $1 trillion in additional wealth that they have accumulated during this period of national calamity. The question before these 52 Senate Republicans is simple. It is simple: Should we give $2,000 to low- and middle-income Americans right now to help them survive this crisis? That is the decision Senate Republicans have to make right now. Time is running out. Six hundred billionaires got $1 trillion richer this year, and the questionbefore Senate Republicans is this: Are you willing to spend an amount equal to just half of that windfall to America's billionaires in order to help 160 million Americans? Right now, the 52 Senate Republicans serving in this Chamber are the only thing standing in the way of $2,000 being sent to 160 million of our neediest citizens. The House passed the bill authorizing the checks in a big, bipartisan vote. It is hard to get two-thirds of the House of Representatives to agree on what time it is, but two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for the $2,000 checks. President Trump supports the $2,000 checks, so he will sign the bill if the Senate sends it to him. We can vote on the House bill today in a matter of hours if Senate Republicans agree. So why isn't this happening? Why didn't Senator McConnell announce the schedule for the vote on the $2,000 checks bill? Why didn't he agree to Senator Schumer's request to bring it up for an immediate vote? Now, a lot of Republicans are saying they object to the payments because they cost too much and they are going to add too much to the deficit. Well, frankly, spare me the fake righteous indignation about the deficit all of a sudden. Three years ago, these same deficit hawk Republicans passed a tax cut bill that, before the pandemic hit, had already added over $200 billion to the annual deficit, and that was a tax cut where 80 percent of the benefits went to the richest 1 percent of Americans. Warren Buffet wrote in his note to investors last year that the deficit-financed tax cuts earned his empire $29 billion overnight. That windfall, Buffet noted, ``did not come from anything we accomplished at Berkshire.'' So it is funny: Deficits just didn't matter to the 52 when it was tax cuts to the 600 richest people in America. But even if this Congress weren't ending in 5 days and we had time to figure out how to pay for it, do you know how we can't pay for it? Cutting foreign aid. President Trump has been talking a lot about foreign aid in the last week. Now, the money we spend on foreign aid, all supported by Democrats and Republicans over the years, all of it smart investments in our Nation's security--that actually wasn't in the COVID relief package. It was in the annual budget, as it always is. It just so happens that this year the COVID relief package and the annual budget were passed together. But just for argument's sake, let's say Trump got his way and every single dollar of foreign aid was cut out of the budget. Would that pay for the $2,000 checks? Not even close. President Trump apparently has an oversized impression of how much money we spend on foreign aid, because our annual foreign aid spending doesn't even equal 10 percent of the cost of a one-time $2,000 payment to low- and middle-income citizens. There is also some speculation that Senator McConnell is going to join together the $2,000 payments with other, much more controversial measures, much more complicated measures, like the reform of our internet liability laws. That is an invitation for this entire effort to fall apart. The House has finished voting. They have passed the $2,000 payment bill and sent it to us. They are not interested in taking up anything else. If we start adding poison pills to the $2,000 payment bill, that is just another way of telling the American people that this body doesn't support $2,000 payments. Listen, being a billionaire must be crazy. I make a lot of money as a Senator, but even I would have to work 7,500 years before my earnings equaled $1 billion. You know what was happening $7,500 years ago? The Stone Age. There isn't a good reason to oppose giving Americans who aren't billionaires a measly $2,000 check to help them put food on the table for their kids in the middle of this once-in-a-lifetime crisis. There isn't a good reason to choose to make moms and dads all across this country decide which two meals they will feed their kids each day because three meals are not an option. Two thousand dollars doesn't put dinner on the table every night, but, man, going to bed hungry when you are 11--it sucks. And even dealing with it every other night instead of every single night, no kid is going to turn that down. There are 52 of you, and in the next 24 to 48 hours, you get to decide: Do you protect the billionaires or do you choose to feed that 11-year-old kid? The only thing that stands between the American people and a $2,000 emergency survival check is 52 Senate Republicans. Got it? Understand? There is a bill pending right now before the Senate that gives $2,000 to ordinary Americans. Yes, it costs a lot of money, and maybe down the line we will have to ask the billionaires to pay for it, but the bill is here right now. The legislative session expires in 5 days. President Trump says he will sign it, and all that matters right now is what these 52 people decide. The House passed the bill with lots of Democratic and Republican support. The President supports the idea. The only thing that can stop $2,000 payments to struggling Americans right now is 52 Senate Republicans. Some things in Washington aren't that simple--but this is. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7959 | null | 2,017 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, America has 600 billionaires. Now, $1 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money these days. President Trump just signed a bill, begrudgingly, that has $900 billion in it. But trust me--$1 billion is still a whole lot of money. It is actually so much money that it is really hard to find words to describe what it looks like, but let me try. If you are, for instance, one of the half a million Americans who make the minimum wage in this Nation and are lucky enough to work 40 hours a week, guess how many years you would have to work in order to get $1 billion. Five hundred years? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? No, you are not even close. If you make minimum wage in America today, you would need to work for 75,000 years in order to make $1 billion--75,000 years. Neanderthals were roaming the Earth 75,000 years ago. Those guys, if they had made minimum wage, would have had to have worked up until present day, every single day--that is, of course, if they hadn't spent a dime of the money they had made in order to accrue $1 billion. One billion dollars is a bananas amount of money, and there are 600 people in America today who make at least that amount of money or have that amount of money to their names. That is crazy. With $1 billion, you are leading a life that, frankly, none of us can really imagine, right? You have private planes. You have yachts. You have household staffs in the dozens. You have enough money to make sure that your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren and your great-great-grandchildren never have to work a day in their lives. Generations of your offspring can just live lives of indolent luxury, without a care, if they so choose. Do you know where I was 2 days before Thanksgiving this year? I was at Hamden Middle School, in my State, to help hand out free food for the unemployed, the poor, and the disabled ahead of a long holiday weekend. Those long weekends can be really hard, especially the ones that fall at the end of the month when the SNAP benefits have long run out. I got there as darkness fell but right at the beginning of the event. I noticed that down the hill from the roundabout at the school at which they were handing out the food, there was usually an empty parking lot. That night, at that moment, at the beginning of the event, that parking lot was lit up by hundreds of sets of headlights of hundreds of cars that were just sitting there, idle, in that parking lot. I asked the organizer of the event what was going on in that parking lot. Was there some other event happening that evening? Why all the cars? He told me: The cars started pulling into that lot hours ago. They got wind we were handing out food, and they got here early to make sure they didn't get left out. We have enough food for 300 people, and there were 300 cars in that lot before I even got here. That is what has happened during this pandemic. Millions of families all across this Nation, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs or have had their hours dramatically cut back. They have no savings because work doesn't pay in this country anymore. They spend everything they earn each month. So when the economy collapsed, virtually overnight in the spring, they got desperate--really fast. I want you to think about what it is really like on an hour-to-hour basis when you don't have enough money for food for your family. The decisions you have to make every single day are practically animalistic. Do you make your kids go hungry during the day, when they need the most energy, or do you skimp on dinner and force your kids to go to bed with hunger pangs? There are hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers who, right now, as I am speaking, are making that decision today. That is the reality of this pandemic. But here is another reality: Those 600 billionaires in this country? As it turns out, as a group, they lost nothing--nothing--during this pandemic. No, exactly the opposite. They got richer. The wealthiest 600 Americans collectively added $1 trillion to their bank accounts. Let me say it again. The richest 600 Americans gained $1 trillion over the course of 2020. Let's be clear. That is not money that grew in their money tree orchards. Yes, we are printing some more money these days, but wealth isn't far away from a zero-sum game still. So when we allow for 600 people in the country to control 50 percent of the Nation's wealth, that is coming out of your pocket. Six hundred people in a country of 328 million isn't a lot of people. But do you know what is a smaller number than 600? Fifty-two. There are 52 Republicans in this Chamber--52 people who are going to have a decision to make about what to do in a country where millions are literally starving as we speak, while 600 billionaires count the $1 trillion in additional wealth that they have accumulated during this period of national calamity. The question before these 52 Senate Republicans is simple. It is simple: Should we give $2,000 to low- and middle-income Americans right now to help them survive this crisis? That is the decision Senate Republicans have to make right now. Time is running out. Six hundred billionaires got $1 trillion richer this year, and the questionbefore Senate Republicans is this: Are you willing to spend an amount equal to just half of that windfall to America's billionaires in order to help 160 million Americans? Right now, the 52 Senate Republicans serving in this Chamber are the only thing standing in the way of $2,000 being sent to 160 million of our neediest citizens. The House passed the bill authorizing the checks in a big, bipartisan vote. It is hard to get two-thirds of the House of Representatives to agree on what time it is, but two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for the $2,000 checks. President Trump supports the $2,000 checks, so he will sign the bill if the Senate sends it to him. We can vote on the House bill today in a matter of hours if Senate Republicans agree. So why isn't this happening? Why didn't Senator McConnell announce the schedule for the vote on the $2,000 checks bill? Why didn't he agree to Senator Schumer's request to bring it up for an immediate vote? Now, a lot of Republicans are saying they object to the payments because they cost too much and they are going to add too much to the deficit. Well, frankly, spare me the fake righteous indignation about the deficit all of a sudden. Three years ago, these same deficit hawk Republicans passed a tax cut bill that, before the pandemic hit, had already added over $200 billion to the annual deficit, and that was a tax cut where 80 percent of the benefits went to the richest 1 percent of Americans. Warren Buffet wrote in his note to investors last year that the deficit-financed tax cuts earned his empire $29 billion overnight. That windfall, Buffet noted, ``did not come from anything we accomplished at Berkshire.'' So it is funny: Deficits just didn't matter to the 52 when it was tax cuts to the 600 richest people in America. But even if this Congress weren't ending in 5 days and we had time to figure out how to pay for it, do you know how we can't pay for it? Cutting foreign aid. President Trump has been talking a lot about foreign aid in the last week. Now, the money we spend on foreign aid, all supported by Democrats and Republicans over the years, all of it smart investments in our Nation's security--that actually wasn't in the COVID relief package. It was in the annual budget, as it always is. It just so happens that this year the COVID relief package and the annual budget were passed together. But just for argument's sake, let's say Trump got his way and every single dollar of foreign aid was cut out of the budget. Would that pay for the $2,000 checks? Not even close. President Trump apparently has an oversized impression of how much money we spend on foreign aid, because our annual foreign aid spending doesn't even equal 10 percent of the cost of a one-time $2,000 payment to low- and middle-income citizens. There is also some speculation that Senator McConnell is going to join together the $2,000 payments with other, much more controversial measures, much more complicated measures, like the reform of our internet liability laws. That is an invitation for this entire effort to fall apart. The House has finished voting. They have passed the $2,000 payment bill and sent it to us. They are not interested in taking up anything else. If we start adding poison pills to the $2,000 payment bill, that is just another way of telling the American people that this body doesn't support $2,000 payments. Listen, being a billionaire must be crazy. I make a lot of money as a Senator, but even I would have to work 7,500 years before my earnings equaled $1 billion. You know what was happening $7,500 years ago? The Stone Age. There isn't a good reason to oppose giving Americans who aren't billionaires a measly $2,000 check to help them put food on the table for their kids in the middle of this once-in-a-lifetime crisis. There isn't a good reason to choose to make moms and dads all across this country decide which two meals they will feed their kids each day because three meals are not an option. Two thousand dollars doesn't put dinner on the table every night, but, man, going to bed hungry when you are 11--it sucks. And even dealing with it every other night instead of every single night, no kid is going to turn that down. There are 52 of you, and in the next 24 to 48 hours, you get to decide: Do you protect the billionaires or do you choose to feed that 11-year-old kid? The only thing that stands between the American people and a $2,000 emergency survival check is 52 Senate Republicans. Got it? Understand? There is a bill pending right now before the Senate that gives $2,000 to ordinary Americans. Yes, it costs a lot of money, and maybe down the line we will have to ask the billionaires to pay for it, but the bill is here right now. The legislative session expires in 5 days. President Trump says he will sign it, and all that matters right now is what these 52 people decide. The House passed the bill with lots of Democratic and Republican support. The President supports the idea. The only thing that can stop $2,000 payments to struggling Americans right now is 52 Senate Republicans. Some things in Washington aren't that simple--but this is. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7959 | null | 2,018 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several months, as the Senate has worked to support our country through this pandemic, we have kept an eagle eye on the other threats on the horizon, and we passed the National Defense Authorization Act to ensure that we are prepared for whatever comes at us. For our forces to continue fighting and defeating our adversaries in every corner of the world, they need funding. They need stability. They need to be able to plan, and they need the unwavering support of the U.S. Congress and all 330 million Americans. The 2021 NDAA provides that support from Congress. It will prepare our military and servicemembers to address the threats that exist today, while preparing for those that we will inevitably face tomorrow. Earlier this month, this legislation passed the House by a vote of 335 to 78 and the Senate by a vote of 84 to 13. Those are rare vote margins in Congress these days, and that alone is a testament to the importance of this legislation and its bipartisan support. We know the President has the constitutional authority to veto any bill for virtually any reason, and he has exercised that power with this legislation. The reasons the President has given I don't think are frivolous at all, but they just shouldn't be tagged to this particular piece of legislation. His concerns about section 230 under the Communication Decency Act and the power of these social media platforms that censure speech is troubling indeed. This is something we really haven't confronted before. We know that under the First Amendment, the government can't censure speech, but with smalltown newspapers and media outlets and other alternatives fading away, more and more the American people rely on Facebook and Google and other internet platforms to get their information, and they have, I believe, become de facto public forums. So I agree that we do need to address section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as the President has pointed out. The President also has a point about the Commission to rename military bases that are part of the Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment that was adopted in the Armed Services Committee undermines the role of Congress, once the Commission makes its report, to do as Congress believes should be done. But the truth is, as we have learned from our friends across the pond in the UK, no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and indeed no Congress can bind a future Congress. That is true. So if these are things the President believes we should address and that Members of Congress and the new administration believe we should address, we will address them, and we have an opportunity to do that, but we should not try to do that on this bill and risk the loss of this important piece of legislation now in its 60th year of adoption. The Defense Department is hands down the largest employer in the United States, with nearly 2.9 million employees, including both servicemembers and civilians. These men and women can be found in more than 160 countries around the world and on all seven continents. Supporting them is a Herculean task, and the NDAA is a significant way in which we do that. The Defense authorization bill also includes a 3-percent pay raise for our troops and additional support for their families, such as career support for military spouses and quality childcare on military bases. Given the fact that we have an All-Volunteer military, it is important we not only support our servicemembers who wear the uniform but the families who support them as well. I have heard it said, you can recruit a member of the U.S. military, but if you want to retain them, you have to take care of their family, and I believe that is absolutely true. This bill also ensures previous reforms to improve the quality of military housing and healthcare are implemented appropriately. Those who serve in our military have made tremendous sacrifices in order to safeguard our freedoms and our way of life. I regard our support for them and for our national defense the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government. Everything else pales in significance. So we should do everything in our power to ensure that they and their families are appropriately taken care of. Beyond pay and benefits, that means giving the military members the training, the facilities, and the equipment they need not only to succeed on the job but to return home safely. The NDAA authorizes military construction projects across the country, including $183 million in Texas, which will bring serious updates and improvements to our military bases. At Joint Base San Antonio, this funding will provide for a range of new facilities, including a barracks, a flight simulation system, and an F-16 Mission Training Center. At Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, it will support an F-35 operations and maintenance facility, vehicle maintenance shop, and an aircraft maintenance hangar. It will also support fuel facilities at Fort Hood and provide additional funding for the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, which maintains a large portion of our nuclear stockpile. Maintained and modernized facilities are a critical component to military readiness, and this legislation makes tremendous investments in our facilities around the world. It will authorize 93 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that will be built by Texans in Fort Worth. As we work to counter increasingly sophisticated adversaries around the world, this investment in our military readiness could not be more important. In addition to supporting our members in uniform and ensuring they are ready for action when called upon, the NDAA helps our military take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensures that our country is taking active steps to counter threats on the horizon. In recent years, China and Russia have risen to the top of the threats to our country and to world order, with China now assuming the No. 1 role. We remember the Cold War after World War II, where we sought to contain and counter Soviet expansionism, and, actually, the mutual deterrents that we have established during that time has worked. But China is a unique challenge, and none of the old rules apply to China. They are increasingly belligerent and well resourced and continue to demonstrate a lack of respect not only for the United States and our closest allies but for basic human rights. The Chinese Government continues its disturbing and unacceptable genocide against the Uighur people. The so-called political reeducation camps are nothing more than concentration camps where Uighurs are tortured. Recent reporting has found that the treatment in these camps often includes forced abortions, birth control, and sterilization. And China continues to chip away at the freedoms and autonomy of Hong Kong, notwithstanding its promises to the contrary, using a so-called national security law to extinguish opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and to deny the people of Hong Kong the freedoms that they were promised. As I mentioned, though, China doesn't stand alone as a threat to the world. Russia has become increasingly aggressive around the world in its effort to wreak chaos and sow discord. Since their attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, we have witnessed aggression after aggression from Russia, not just here in the cyber space but around the world. From Russia-backed mercenaries fighting in the Middle East to its attempt to steal the coronavirus vaccine research and, in the last few weeks, a massive cyber attack on U.S. Government agencies, Russia continues to undermine the United States and our allies and shows no signs of stopping. It has become increasingly clear, if it wasn't already, that China and Russia adhere to no rules and no principles but their own. As the national defense strategy outlined, the threats posed by these two countries are increasingly dangerous, and countering these growing threats requires a clear and concentrated effort from Congress. That is exactly why passing the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is so important. This legislation prioritizes strategic competition with China and Russia and takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by adversaries around the world. It will build on the progress we have made in recent years to strengthen our military after the draconian cuts during the Obama-Biden administration and achieve peace through strength. Over the last several decades, the NDAA has provided an annual opportunity for us to take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensure that our national defense is prepared to meet the challenges not only of today but of tomorrow, and this year's Defense Authorization Act is no exception. It takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by our adversaries around the world. It invests in modernized national defense that is critical to maintaining peace through strength, and it provides support for our servicemembers and their families. Above all, it sends a message to the world that our country is and will remain the global military leader. I have supported this legislation on the Senate floor many times, and I will do so once again when the opportunity to vote to override the veto presents itself. One of Congress's most critical responsibilities is to provide for the common defense, and the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is how we will deliver. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7960-2 | null | 2,019 |
formal | Google | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several months, as the Senate has worked to support our country through this pandemic, we have kept an eagle eye on the other threats on the horizon, and we passed the National Defense Authorization Act to ensure that we are prepared for whatever comes at us. For our forces to continue fighting and defeating our adversaries in every corner of the world, they need funding. They need stability. They need to be able to plan, and they need the unwavering support of the U.S. Congress and all 330 million Americans. The 2021 NDAA provides that support from Congress. It will prepare our military and servicemembers to address the threats that exist today, while preparing for those that we will inevitably face tomorrow. Earlier this month, this legislation passed the House by a vote of 335 to 78 and the Senate by a vote of 84 to 13. Those are rare vote margins in Congress these days, and that alone is a testament to the importance of this legislation and its bipartisan support. We know the President has the constitutional authority to veto any bill for virtually any reason, and he has exercised that power with this legislation. The reasons the President has given I don't think are frivolous at all, but they just shouldn't be tagged to this particular piece of legislation. His concerns about section 230 under the Communication Decency Act and the power of these social media platforms that censure speech is troubling indeed. This is something we really haven't confronted before. We know that under the First Amendment, the government can't censure speech, but with smalltown newspapers and media outlets and other alternatives fading away, more and more the American people rely on Facebook and Google and other internet platforms to get their information, and they have, I believe, become de facto public forums. So I agree that we do need to address section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as the President has pointed out. The President also has a point about the Commission to rename military bases that are part of the Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment that was adopted in the Armed Services Committee undermines the role of Congress, once the Commission makes its report, to do as Congress believes should be done. But the truth is, as we have learned from our friends across the pond in the UK, no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and indeed no Congress can bind a future Congress. That is true. So if these are things the President believes we should address and that Members of Congress and the new administration believe we should address, we will address them, and we have an opportunity to do that, but we should not try to do that on this bill and risk the loss of this important piece of legislation now in its 60th year of adoption. The Defense Department is hands down the largest employer in the United States, with nearly 2.9 million employees, including both servicemembers and civilians. These men and women can be found in more than 160 countries around the world and on all seven continents. Supporting them is a Herculean task, and the NDAA is a significant way in which we do that. The Defense authorization bill also includes a 3-percent pay raise for our troops and additional support for their families, such as career support for military spouses and quality childcare on military bases. Given the fact that we have an All-Volunteer military, it is important we not only support our servicemembers who wear the uniform but the families who support them as well. I have heard it said, you can recruit a member of the U.S. military, but if you want to retain them, you have to take care of their family, and I believe that is absolutely true. This bill also ensures previous reforms to improve the quality of military housing and healthcare are implemented appropriately. Those who serve in our military have made tremendous sacrifices in order to safeguard our freedoms and our way of life. I regard our support for them and for our national defense the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government. Everything else pales in significance. So we should do everything in our power to ensure that they and their families are appropriately taken care of. Beyond pay and benefits, that means giving the military members the training, the facilities, and the equipment they need not only to succeed on the job but to return home safely. The NDAA authorizes military construction projects across the country, including $183 million in Texas, which will bring serious updates and improvements to our military bases. At Joint Base San Antonio, this funding will provide for a range of new facilities, including a barracks, a flight simulation system, and an F-16 Mission Training Center. At Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, it will support an F-35 operations and maintenance facility, vehicle maintenance shop, and an aircraft maintenance hangar. It will also support fuel facilities at Fort Hood and provide additional funding for the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, which maintains a large portion of our nuclear stockpile. Maintained and modernized facilities are a critical component to military readiness, and this legislation makes tremendous investments in our facilities around the world. It will authorize 93 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that will be built by Texans in Fort Worth. As we work to counter increasingly sophisticated adversaries around the world, this investment in our military readiness could not be more important. In addition to supporting our members in uniform and ensuring they are ready for action when called upon, the NDAA helps our military take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensures that our country is taking active steps to counter threats on the horizon. In recent years, China and Russia have risen to the top of the threats to our country and to world order, with China now assuming the No. 1 role. We remember the Cold War after World War II, where we sought to contain and counter Soviet expansionism, and, actually, the mutual deterrents that we have established during that time has worked. But China is a unique challenge, and none of the old rules apply to China. They are increasingly belligerent and well resourced and continue to demonstrate a lack of respect not only for the United States and our closest allies but for basic human rights. The Chinese Government continues its disturbing and unacceptable genocide against the Uighur people. The so-called political reeducation camps are nothing more than concentration camps where Uighurs are tortured. Recent reporting has found that the treatment in these camps often includes forced abortions, birth control, and sterilization. And China continues to chip away at the freedoms and autonomy of Hong Kong, notwithstanding its promises to the contrary, using a so-called national security law to extinguish opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and to deny the people of Hong Kong the freedoms that they were promised. As I mentioned, though, China doesn't stand alone as a threat to the world. Russia has become increasingly aggressive around the world in its effort to wreak chaos and sow discord. Since their attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, we have witnessed aggression after aggression from Russia, not just here in the cyber space but around the world. From Russia-backed mercenaries fighting in the Middle East to its attempt to steal the coronavirus vaccine research and, in the last few weeks, a massive cyber attack on U.S. Government agencies, Russia continues to undermine the United States and our allies and shows no signs of stopping. It has become increasingly clear, if it wasn't already, that China and Russia adhere to no rules and no principles but their own. As the national defense strategy outlined, the threats posed by these two countries are increasingly dangerous, and countering these growing threats requires a clear and concentrated effort from Congress. That is exactly why passing the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is so important. This legislation prioritizes strategic competition with China and Russia and takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by adversaries around the world. It will build on the progress we have made in recent years to strengthen our military after the draconian cuts during the Obama-Biden administration and achieve peace through strength. Over the last several decades, the NDAA has provided an annual opportunity for us to take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensure that our national defense is prepared to meet the challenges not only of today but of tomorrow, and this year's Defense Authorization Act is no exception. It takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by our adversaries around the world. It invests in modernized national defense that is critical to maintaining peace through strength, and it provides support for our servicemembers and their families. Above all, it sends a message to the world that our country is and will remain the global military leader. I have supported this legislation on the Senate floor many times, and I will do so once again when the opportunity to vote to override the veto presents itself. One of Congress's most critical responsibilities is to provide for the common defense, and the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is how we will deliver. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7960-2 | null | 2,020 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several months, as the Senate has worked to support our country through this pandemic, we have kept an eagle eye on the other threats on the horizon, and we passed the National Defense Authorization Act to ensure that we are prepared for whatever comes at us. For our forces to continue fighting and defeating our adversaries in every corner of the world, they need funding. They need stability. They need to be able to plan, and they need the unwavering support of the U.S. Congress and all 330 million Americans. The 2021 NDAA provides that support from Congress. It will prepare our military and servicemembers to address the threats that exist today, while preparing for those that we will inevitably face tomorrow. Earlier this month, this legislation passed the House by a vote of 335 to 78 and the Senate by a vote of 84 to 13. Those are rare vote margins in Congress these days, and that alone is a testament to the importance of this legislation and its bipartisan support. We know the President has the constitutional authority to veto any bill for virtually any reason, and he has exercised that power with this legislation. The reasons the President has given I don't think are frivolous at all, but they just shouldn't be tagged to this particular piece of legislation. His concerns about section 230 under the Communication Decency Act and the power of these social media platforms that censure speech is troubling indeed. This is something we really haven't confronted before. We know that under the First Amendment, the government can't censure speech, but with smalltown newspapers and media outlets and other alternatives fading away, more and more the American people rely on Facebook and Google and other internet platforms to get their information, and they have, I believe, become de facto public forums. So I agree that we do need to address section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as the President has pointed out. The President also has a point about the Commission to rename military bases that are part of the Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment that was adopted in the Armed Services Committee undermines the role of Congress, once the Commission makes its report, to do as Congress believes should be done. But the truth is, as we have learned from our friends across the pond in the UK, no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and indeed no Congress can bind a future Congress. That is true. So if these are things the President believes we should address and that Members of Congress and the new administration believe we should address, we will address them, and we have an opportunity to do that, but we should not try to do that on this bill and risk the loss of this important piece of legislation now in its 60th year of adoption. The Defense Department is hands down the largest employer in the United States, with nearly 2.9 million employees, including both servicemembers and civilians. These men and women can be found in more than 160 countries around the world and on all seven continents. Supporting them is a Herculean task, and the NDAA is a significant way in which we do that. The Defense authorization bill also includes a 3-percent pay raise for our troops and additional support for their families, such as career support for military spouses and quality childcare on military bases. Given the fact that we have an All-Volunteer military, it is important we not only support our servicemembers who wear the uniform but the families who support them as well. I have heard it said, you can recruit a member of the U.S. military, but if you want to retain them, you have to take care of their family, and I believe that is absolutely true. This bill also ensures previous reforms to improve the quality of military housing and healthcare are implemented appropriately. Those who serve in our military have made tremendous sacrifices in order to safeguard our freedoms and our way of life. I regard our support for them and for our national defense the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government. Everything else pales in significance. So we should do everything in our power to ensure that they and their families are appropriately taken care of. Beyond pay and benefits, that means giving the military members the training, the facilities, and the equipment they need not only to succeed on the job but to return home safely. The NDAA authorizes military construction projects across the country, including $183 million in Texas, which will bring serious updates and improvements to our military bases. At Joint Base San Antonio, this funding will provide for a range of new facilities, including a barracks, a flight simulation system, and an F-16 Mission Training Center. At Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, it will support an F-35 operations and maintenance facility, vehicle maintenance shop, and an aircraft maintenance hangar. It will also support fuel facilities at Fort Hood and provide additional funding for the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, which maintains a large portion of our nuclear stockpile. Maintained and modernized facilities are a critical component to military readiness, and this legislation makes tremendous investments in our facilities around the world. It will authorize 93 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that will be built by Texans in Fort Worth. As we work to counter increasingly sophisticated adversaries around the world, this investment in our military readiness could not be more important. In addition to supporting our members in uniform and ensuring they are ready for action when called upon, the NDAA helps our military take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensures that our country is taking active steps to counter threats on the horizon. In recent years, China and Russia have risen to the top of the threats to our country and to world order, with China now assuming the No. 1 role. We remember the Cold War after World War II, where we sought to contain and counter Soviet expansionism, and, actually, the mutual deterrents that we have established during that time has worked. But China is a unique challenge, and none of the old rules apply to China. They are increasingly belligerent and well resourced and continue to demonstrate a lack of respect not only for the United States and our closest allies but for basic human rights. The Chinese Government continues its disturbing and unacceptable genocide against the Uighur people. The so-called political reeducation camps are nothing more than concentration camps where Uighurs are tortured. Recent reporting has found that the treatment in these camps often includes forced abortions, birth control, and sterilization. And China continues to chip away at the freedoms and autonomy of Hong Kong, notwithstanding its promises to the contrary, using a so-called national security law to extinguish opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and to deny the people of Hong Kong the freedoms that they were promised. As I mentioned, though, China doesn't stand alone as a threat to the world. Russia has become increasingly aggressive around the world in its effort to wreak chaos and sow discord. Since their attempts to interfere with the 2016 election, we have witnessed aggression after aggression from Russia, not just here in the cyber space but around the world. From Russia-backed mercenaries fighting in the Middle East to its attempt to steal the coronavirus vaccine research and, in the last few weeks, a massive cyber attack on U.S. Government agencies, Russia continues to undermine the United States and our allies and shows no signs of stopping. It has become increasingly clear, if it wasn't already, that China and Russia adhere to no rules and no principles but their own. As the national defense strategy outlined, the threats posed by these two countries are increasingly dangerous, and countering these growing threats requires a clear and concentrated effort from Congress. That is exactly why passing the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is so important. This legislation prioritizes strategic competition with China and Russia and takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by adversaries around the world. It will build on the progress we have made in recent years to strengthen our military after the draconian cuts during the Obama-Biden administration and achieve peace through strength. Over the last several decades, the NDAA has provided an annual opportunity for us to take stock of the evolving threat landscape and ensure that our national defense is prepared to meet the challenges not only of today but of tomorrow, and this year's Defense Authorization Act is no exception. It takes a strong approach to counter the threats posed by our adversaries around the world. It invests in modernized national defense that is critical to maintaining peace through strength, and it provides support for our servicemembers and their families. Above all, it sends a message to the world that our country is and will remain the global military leader. I have supported this legislation on the Senate floor many times, and I will do so once again when the opportunity to vote to override the veto presents itself. One of Congress's most critical responsibilities is to provide for the common defense, and the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is how we will deliver. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7960-2 | null | 2,021 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I was disappointed last week when President Trump vetoed the NDAA. This will be the 60th year that we have had the NDAA. The NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, and I have said so many times, countless times--on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate--that this is the most important bill that we have. Some people don't agree with that, but I do. That is what we are supposed to be doing here. We are supposed to be defending America. And there is a lot to do. We are in the most threatening situation that we have ever been in. I sometimes look back and think of the good old days of the Cold War when you had two superpowers out there. We knew what they had; they knew what we had. Mutual assurance of destruction meant something at that time. If you kill us, we kill you, and everyone is happy. But that is living in the past. But anymore now, with the weaponry that is out there, you can get one outside group that doesn't have any resources at all, and they have the ability to wipe out another country. So it is a real threat that we are up against. I do chair the committee called the Senate Armed Services Committee, and, of course, I have been very active in the National Defense Authorization Act every year since--well, since 1987. It is a long time. So I am proud of the conference report that we had. The NDAA right here--our vote in this Senate was 84 to 13. Wow. You can't find that kind of togetherness in a cause anywhere else. But it puts members of the families of the military first. I share President Trump's frustration about section 230. I know that it is a complicated thing. The majority of people in America don't know what that is all about, but section 230 is something that has nothing to do with the military--nothing at all. The committee that I chair is the Armed Services Committee. That would be found in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham. He does a great job of chairing that. That is where any kind of reform in section 230 should come from. I agree that the President should have the authority to determine troop levels. That is what we have in this bill. We have the President making those decisions. That is why we made sure that the final NDAA gave the President very broad authority in determining troop levels all around, and we have looked at them in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. We have looked at them in Ethiopia--in Afghanistan and other places around the world. So we look at what we have done, and I was going to mention--I have been down here several times talking about the President and what he has done and the great job that he has done for the United States. And I am going to wind up with some comments on a card that I put together. I put this card together back 2 years ago, talking about the top 10 Trump accomplishments. I think it is important that people remember that. We have a lot of people down here forgetting about all the really good things that have happened, so I am going to talk about that in a minute. But I am here today because we have to pass the NDAA. This would be the 60th year in a row that we have the NDAA, and it is necessary to have. It is the most important bill of the year. I have believed this for a long time. You have heard me say it before. I always stand with our troops. The military servicemembers and their families will suffer if we don't enact it for the 60th year. If the NDAA is not passed, more than 200,000 military families will see smaller paychecks in January because the special pays and the bonuses for hazard pay are all part of this bill. Additionally, it would hurt the areas where the military is having the most serious problem. In a way, it is kind of a mixed bag because we have--prior to the pandemic coming along, and that was in about March of this year--before that happened, we had the best economy, I could argue, that we have had in my lifetime, and all these things were very, very good. Then, of course, when that happened everything changed. Now, one of the problems you have when you have such a great economy is that you have a lot of competition. We have to have a military force. That military force has to have resources. They have to have the ability to step in because we don't know where the next threat is going to come from. And with people with special abilities--now I am talking about pilots, cyber experts, engineers, and doctors--that is where we have a problem. We don't have enough of them--pilots. I have been an active pilot now for longer than most Members here have been alive, and I know that back during the previous administration, the Obama administration, we had a real serious problem because we were not able to attract the pilots at that time because that was when we had a President who--he wasn't ashamed of it--his top priority was not defending America. He had other priorities. So, consequently, we went through a period the last 5 years--the last 5 years of his administration were the years 2010 through 2015, and during that timeframe he reduced the funding for the military by 25 percent. At the same time he did that, China was increasing theirs in that same timeframe by 83 percent. So we have China increasing their military expenditures by 83 percent at the same time we are reducing ours by 25 percent. So we had serious problems there. One of the areas, when people are cutting the military, that they do it where it won't be as noticeable is in the flying hours. So we had pilots out there, but they weren't flying the hours that they needed to fly to keep their proficiency up, and, consequently, a lot of them left and went to the airlines and went other places because they were wanting to be flying the hours. That is one of the problems that we had during that time. So we have the military's ability to recruit and retain servicemembers who are in the shortest supply. As I mentioned, that would be things like cyber experts and engineers and doctors, so they have the skill sets that need to be done out there. Of course, this President came along, and we started rebuilding the military. I will always remember being at the White House during a time that we were talking about what we were going to do with the military, and he actually looked over at me, and he said: What do you think we need to do with the military? I said: We are going to have to rebuild the military. It is going to cost something like $750 billion before it is over. He said: That is what we should do; we need to start with that. And this President, with his leadership, took us with a new priority in defending America and building our military, and it happened. So we have the things that will happen if we don't pass this thing--the education of children for military families. There is a thing called the impact aid. Impact aid comes about when you don't get the tax base increase with the added enrollment into the schools of the children of military families. So they have impact because they don't pay the taxes. So the impact aid is the amount of money that supplements that. It is not just in my State of Oklahoma but throughout the country. It ensures that children of military families receive a quality education by supplementing the school districts, the budgets, where they are required. If the NDAA is not passed, military construction projects--I have one in my State of Oklahoma that is one that would--let's see; where is that? Yes, we have a thing where we have an ammunition depot, a demolition shop, for one. This is something where we have gone through a lot of BRAC rounds--that is Base Realignment and Closure Commissions--and we have increased the size of our ammunition demolition activities substantially. And we are doing most of it now right there in Oklahoma. Well, this has a new demolition shop in there so we can get rid of a lot of these things we were not able to get rid of. So we have military construction projects in 38 States, and one happens to be in the State of Maine. It is very significant that they be able to do these projects. If the military construction doesn't happen, both an authorization and appropriation--people don't understand this because it is kind of talked around, but in order for something to get done, you have to have it authorized. That is what the committee that I chair does--authorizes the military projects. Then it has to be appropriated. The appropriators come along, and they put the money in there. That is how this system works. If the NDAA is not passed, the military won't be able to increase the end strength--or the total number of troops in the military services--wherethat is needed to address the growing threats. End strength increases don't happen without authorization. You can't appropriate it. So if the NDAA should not be passed, the Pentagon loses the ability to quickly and efficiently process security clearance investigations. Right now there is a backlog because it takes a long time to do this, but this has a streamlining provision in it that is going to make that a lot easier so we will be able to get security clearances. All these things are tied into this bill. The DOD, if we didn't pass this thing, would lack the authority to pay the nonmilitary personnel on hospital shifts. They are the ones who are doing the great job right now with the COVID response. That is just kind of a snapshot of what we are counting on to support our troops in the field, the bare minimum we need. Without the NDAA, we lose all of that and also lose all the other policies. Right now, this bill makes China the primary strategic threat. I think we all understand that. We have strategic threats from Russia and China. Last year, we had the European part addressed. This year, the bill that is pending right now that we are going to try to get passed for this year--and I think we will successfully do that--is going to be concentrating on the Pacific area; that is, China and the things that China is doing that people don't--many people don't realize the threat that is out there. Right now we are up, as I understand it, to seven different areas where the Chinese are actually building, creating islands in the South China Sea. This is something that is different than has ever been done before. I contend and have always contended it is illegal, but they are still doing it. They are doing it, and that is the effort that they are making there. If you go into these islands where they are rebuilding, it is almost as if China is preparing for World War III--all of it. This is what is happening right now. Right now we know about this SolarWinds hack, the hack that we are facing. That is something where we have language to deal with that in the Defense authorization bill. The new ``hunt forward'' authority that allows our cyber operators to do more work to find malicious actors proactively, this is something that we need to get done for the defense of our country. It implements the Cyber Solarium Commission and the recommendations. There are 27 recommendations that they have in this commission. And it establishes a new National Cyber Director. These are things where it is a moving target. There are a lot of things that we are doing now that we should have been doing before, and it took China and Russia to kind of forge ahead of us, as they did in the previous administration, to remind us that we have these very serious problems. Our troops need the NDAA. It is our responsibility to make sure that they have the equipment, training, and resources to complete the mission and return home safely. I will close with this one reminder. On December 29, 1777, 243 years ago today, General George Washington wrote to the Continental Congress imploring that they needed to provide the resources his troops needed. He wrote: I hope that the supplies they will be able to furnish in aid of those, which Congress may immediately import themselves, will be equal and competent to every demand. If they do not, I fear--I am satisfied the Troops will never be in a situation to answer the Public expectation and perform the duties required of them. That is as true today as it was in 1777. We have to do that. We look at the national security wins of this President. I think people don't talk about that as much. We have identified China as the No. 1 adversary. That was in the NDS, the national defense survey. It was put together by 12 of the real experts--6 Republicans, 6 Democrats. It has been the blueprint for our military ever since that time, about 3 years ago. They identified China as the major threat. There is $2.5 trillion to rebuild the military. That is what we were able to get done. We increased the size of the military, replaced obsolete equipment, and made new investments in future tech. Hypersonics is a good example. Both Russia and China are ahead of us in the area of hypersonics; it is the new ``state of the art.'' There is a pay raise for the troops. They took out the terrorist leaders. How many people remember Baghdadi and Soleimani? They were the top terrorists in the world. They are gone now. This President, this administration took care of that. We established the Space Force. The Space Force was the first new force that was established in many, many years. I wasn't really sold on it at first because I thought we were doing a pretty good job. It wasn't coordinated. You had different military units doing it, and they weren't even really talking to each other. That is what we put together. This President provided the leadership in doing that. There is the widow's tax. Everybody remembers that. That was something that had to be done. Others talked about it. This President did it. Then the ISIS caliphate was destroyed. There is the Abraham Accords. They supported Israel through new security assistance. We know that is going on today. All these things this President has done and has done a great job. I do want to mention this, and I think it is worthwhile, really, because we know what won't happen if we don't pass this bill. We won't get the bonuses necessary; I already mentioned that. The impact aid, I mentioned that. Military construction project authorizations, we would not have that. Full pay for DOD civilians, that has to be done. That has been talked about by a lot of administrations but not really done. I will finalize this by talking about China. Nothing in the bill helps China any way at all. There is a group called the American Enterprise Institute. That is a group that is kind of the conservative conscience that evaluates programs that come along. They said: ``This bill has the most substantial and consequential China-related provisions since the 2000 NDAA.'' They are talking about this bill and what it does for China. It establishes the Pacific Deterrence. We talked about the European Deterrence last year in the NDAA bill. This is the Pacific Deterrence. That is China we are talking about. It shifts the supply chains away from China in semiconductors, circuit boards, and pharmaceuticals, and it stimulates the economy in those ways. It brings Chinese malign national security activities into light so we know what they are doing--who the good guys are, who the bad guys are. This supports Taiwan. We have talked about that for a long period of time. This bill accelerates that program. It prevents Chinese intellectual property theft. I have a whole list here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be inserted after my comments. What I would like to wind up with, if I brought it--I did. Two years ago, I put this card together. This is when I realized the media hates Trump. People are not aware of all the good things he did in those first couple of years. People were not aware of it. First of all, on the card--I am going to run over these. Biggest tax cuts. We learned a lesson back there during a Democratic administration. John Kennedy said the best way to get more revenue in for the Great Society programs that they were advocating at that time was to reduce marginal rates and that would increase revenue. It did. Unfortunately, John Kennedy died before he could reap the benefits that came with that, but it worked. Of course, others followed him, including Presidents Clinton, President Bush, and others, by reducing the rates. That also increased the revenue. What this President did that was different than the rest of them is that he did not just decrease the rates--the tax rates--but he also decreased all the overregulation. How many people know that, back during the Obama administration, we had a rule that we were adhering to that said if you were a domestic oil and gas producer in the United States of America and you were in competition with China or somebody else, you had to give them our whole playbook on how we put together our system over here and all the elements. And that put us at a disadvantage with our competitors in China and in energy. I was happy that I used to say, after Obama got out of office, that the war on fossil fuels was over for a while. Look at the energy dominance now. We are the global leader in oil and gas production: a 277-percent growth in crude exports, a 132-percent increase in coal exports, a 52-percent increase in natural gas exports. These are exports. That is what we are doing now in the United States as a result of the efforts of this President and bringing our economy around. Crackdown on illegal migration. Nobody wanted the wall, they said. Now people realize that is where a lot of the bad people were getting in. We moved the Embassy. Every Democrat and Republican President, in my memory, tried to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. They all talked about it. This President went in and did it. He enacted the infrastructure bill, the WRDA bill, or the Water Resources Development Act, and the FAA reauthorization. And on the judges we have, not just Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but I think our number is up to about 225 new judges. He repealed the overregulation of the Dodd-Frank rules. Anyone in business will tell you that that was one of the major accomplishments of this President, President Trump--and the record employment. But then I would say that the 10th and last one I mention to everyone who will listen is what he did for the military. We went from the time of dropping down in the last 5 years of the Obama administration by 25 percent, while China was increasing 83 percent. Now we have rebuilt that military. That is why the NDAA is so significant right now and to make sure that that gets passed and that we are able to have that. That is what this vote is all about. The NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is the most important bill of the year. That is why we are doing it, and that is why we are here today during this holiday season | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7961 | null | 2,022 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I was disappointed last week when President Trump vetoed the NDAA. This will be the 60th year that we have had the NDAA. The NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, and I have said so many times, countless times--on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate--that this is the most important bill that we have. Some people don't agree with that, but I do. That is what we are supposed to be doing here. We are supposed to be defending America. And there is a lot to do. We are in the most threatening situation that we have ever been in. I sometimes look back and think of the good old days of the Cold War when you had two superpowers out there. We knew what they had; they knew what we had. Mutual assurance of destruction meant something at that time. If you kill us, we kill you, and everyone is happy. But that is living in the past. But anymore now, with the weaponry that is out there, you can get one outside group that doesn't have any resources at all, and they have the ability to wipe out another country. So it is a real threat that we are up against. I do chair the committee called the Senate Armed Services Committee, and, of course, I have been very active in the National Defense Authorization Act every year since--well, since 1987. It is a long time. So I am proud of the conference report that we had. The NDAA right here--our vote in this Senate was 84 to 13. Wow. You can't find that kind of togetherness in a cause anywhere else. But it puts members of the families of the military first. I share President Trump's frustration about section 230. I know that it is a complicated thing. The majority of people in America don't know what that is all about, but section 230 is something that has nothing to do with the military--nothing at all. The committee that I chair is the Armed Services Committee. That would be found in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham. He does a great job of chairing that. That is where any kind of reform in section 230 should come from. I agree that the President should have the authority to determine troop levels. That is what we have in this bill. We have the President making those decisions. That is why we made sure that the final NDAA gave the President very broad authority in determining troop levels all around, and we have looked at them in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. We have looked at them in Ethiopia--in Afghanistan and other places around the world. So we look at what we have done, and I was going to mention--I have been down here several times talking about the President and what he has done and the great job that he has done for the United States. And I am going to wind up with some comments on a card that I put together. I put this card together back 2 years ago, talking about the top 10 Trump accomplishments. I think it is important that people remember that. We have a lot of people down here forgetting about all the really good things that have happened, so I am going to talk about that in a minute. But I am here today because we have to pass the NDAA. This would be the 60th year in a row that we have the NDAA, and it is necessary to have. It is the most important bill of the year. I have believed this for a long time. You have heard me say it before. I always stand with our troops. The military servicemembers and their families will suffer if we don't enact it for the 60th year. If the NDAA is not passed, more than 200,000 military families will see smaller paychecks in January because the special pays and the bonuses for hazard pay are all part of this bill. Additionally, it would hurt the areas where the military is having the most serious problem. In a way, it is kind of a mixed bag because we have--prior to the pandemic coming along, and that was in about March of this year--before that happened, we had the best economy, I could argue, that we have had in my lifetime, and all these things were very, very good. Then, of course, when that happened everything changed. Now, one of the problems you have when you have such a great economy is that you have a lot of competition. We have to have a military force. That military force has to have resources. They have to have the ability to step in because we don't know where the next threat is going to come from. And with people with special abilities--now I am talking about pilots, cyber experts, engineers, and doctors--that is where we have a problem. We don't have enough of them--pilots. I have been an active pilot now for longer than most Members here have been alive, and I know that back during the previous administration, the Obama administration, we had a real serious problem because we were not able to attract the pilots at that time because that was when we had a President who--he wasn't ashamed of it--his top priority was not defending America. He had other priorities. So, consequently, we went through a period the last 5 years--the last 5 years of his administration were the years 2010 through 2015, and during that timeframe he reduced the funding for the military by 25 percent. At the same time he did that, China was increasing theirs in that same timeframe by 83 percent. So we have China increasing their military expenditures by 83 percent at the same time we are reducing ours by 25 percent. So we had serious problems there. One of the areas, when people are cutting the military, that they do it where it won't be as noticeable is in the flying hours. So we had pilots out there, but they weren't flying the hours that they needed to fly to keep their proficiency up, and, consequently, a lot of them left and went to the airlines and went other places because they were wanting to be flying the hours. That is one of the problems that we had during that time. So we have the military's ability to recruit and retain servicemembers who are in the shortest supply. As I mentioned, that would be things like cyber experts and engineers and doctors, so they have the skill sets that need to be done out there. Of course, this President came along, and we started rebuilding the military. I will always remember being at the White House during a time that we were talking about what we were going to do with the military, and he actually looked over at me, and he said: What do you think we need to do with the military? I said: We are going to have to rebuild the military. It is going to cost something like $750 billion before it is over. He said: That is what we should do; we need to start with that. And this President, with his leadership, took us with a new priority in defending America and building our military, and it happened. So we have the things that will happen if we don't pass this thing--the education of children for military families. There is a thing called the impact aid. Impact aid comes about when you don't get the tax base increase with the added enrollment into the schools of the children of military families. So they have impact because they don't pay the taxes. So the impact aid is the amount of money that supplements that. It is not just in my State of Oklahoma but throughout the country. It ensures that children of military families receive a quality education by supplementing the school districts, the budgets, where they are required. If the NDAA is not passed, military construction projects--I have one in my State of Oklahoma that is one that would--let's see; where is that? Yes, we have a thing where we have an ammunition depot, a demolition shop, for one. This is something where we have gone through a lot of BRAC rounds--that is Base Realignment and Closure Commissions--and we have increased the size of our ammunition demolition activities substantially. And we are doing most of it now right there in Oklahoma. Well, this has a new demolition shop in there so we can get rid of a lot of these things we were not able to get rid of. So we have military construction projects in 38 States, and one happens to be in the State of Maine. It is very significant that they be able to do these projects. If the military construction doesn't happen, both an authorization and appropriation--people don't understand this because it is kind of talked around, but in order for something to get done, you have to have it authorized. That is what the committee that I chair does--authorizes the military projects. Then it has to be appropriated. The appropriators come along, and they put the money in there. That is how this system works. If the NDAA is not passed, the military won't be able to increase the end strength--or the total number of troops in the military services--wherethat is needed to address the growing threats. End strength increases don't happen without authorization. You can't appropriate it. So if the NDAA should not be passed, the Pentagon loses the ability to quickly and efficiently process security clearance investigations. Right now there is a backlog because it takes a long time to do this, but this has a streamlining provision in it that is going to make that a lot easier so we will be able to get security clearances. All these things are tied into this bill. The DOD, if we didn't pass this thing, would lack the authority to pay the nonmilitary personnel on hospital shifts. They are the ones who are doing the great job right now with the COVID response. That is just kind of a snapshot of what we are counting on to support our troops in the field, the bare minimum we need. Without the NDAA, we lose all of that and also lose all the other policies. Right now, this bill makes China the primary strategic threat. I think we all understand that. We have strategic threats from Russia and China. Last year, we had the European part addressed. This year, the bill that is pending right now that we are going to try to get passed for this year--and I think we will successfully do that--is going to be concentrating on the Pacific area; that is, China and the things that China is doing that people don't--many people don't realize the threat that is out there. Right now we are up, as I understand it, to seven different areas where the Chinese are actually building, creating islands in the South China Sea. This is something that is different than has ever been done before. I contend and have always contended it is illegal, but they are still doing it. They are doing it, and that is the effort that they are making there. If you go into these islands where they are rebuilding, it is almost as if China is preparing for World War III--all of it. This is what is happening right now. Right now we know about this SolarWinds hack, the hack that we are facing. That is something where we have language to deal with that in the Defense authorization bill. The new ``hunt forward'' authority that allows our cyber operators to do more work to find malicious actors proactively, this is something that we need to get done for the defense of our country. It implements the Cyber Solarium Commission and the recommendations. There are 27 recommendations that they have in this commission. And it establishes a new National Cyber Director. These are things where it is a moving target. There are a lot of things that we are doing now that we should have been doing before, and it took China and Russia to kind of forge ahead of us, as they did in the previous administration, to remind us that we have these very serious problems. Our troops need the NDAA. It is our responsibility to make sure that they have the equipment, training, and resources to complete the mission and return home safely. I will close with this one reminder. On December 29, 1777, 243 years ago today, General George Washington wrote to the Continental Congress imploring that they needed to provide the resources his troops needed. He wrote: I hope that the supplies they will be able to furnish in aid of those, which Congress may immediately import themselves, will be equal and competent to every demand. If they do not, I fear--I am satisfied the Troops will never be in a situation to answer the Public expectation and perform the duties required of them. That is as true today as it was in 1777. We have to do that. We look at the national security wins of this President. I think people don't talk about that as much. We have identified China as the No. 1 adversary. That was in the NDS, the national defense survey. It was put together by 12 of the real experts--6 Republicans, 6 Democrats. It has been the blueprint for our military ever since that time, about 3 years ago. They identified China as the major threat. There is $2.5 trillion to rebuild the military. That is what we were able to get done. We increased the size of the military, replaced obsolete equipment, and made new investments in future tech. Hypersonics is a good example. Both Russia and China are ahead of us in the area of hypersonics; it is the new ``state of the art.'' There is a pay raise for the troops. They took out the terrorist leaders. How many people remember Baghdadi and Soleimani? They were the top terrorists in the world. They are gone now. This President, this administration took care of that. We established the Space Force. The Space Force was the first new force that was established in many, many years. I wasn't really sold on it at first because I thought we were doing a pretty good job. It wasn't coordinated. You had different military units doing it, and they weren't even really talking to each other. That is what we put together. This President provided the leadership in doing that. There is the widow's tax. Everybody remembers that. That was something that had to be done. Others talked about it. This President did it. Then the ISIS caliphate was destroyed. There is the Abraham Accords. They supported Israel through new security assistance. We know that is going on today. All these things this President has done and has done a great job. I do want to mention this, and I think it is worthwhile, really, because we know what won't happen if we don't pass this bill. We won't get the bonuses necessary; I already mentioned that. The impact aid, I mentioned that. Military construction project authorizations, we would not have that. Full pay for DOD civilians, that has to be done. That has been talked about by a lot of administrations but not really done. I will finalize this by talking about China. Nothing in the bill helps China any way at all. There is a group called the American Enterprise Institute. That is a group that is kind of the conservative conscience that evaluates programs that come along. They said: ``This bill has the most substantial and consequential China-related provisions since the 2000 NDAA.'' They are talking about this bill and what it does for China. It establishes the Pacific Deterrence. We talked about the European Deterrence last year in the NDAA bill. This is the Pacific Deterrence. That is China we are talking about. It shifts the supply chains away from China in semiconductors, circuit boards, and pharmaceuticals, and it stimulates the economy in those ways. It brings Chinese malign national security activities into light so we know what they are doing--who the good guys are, who the bad guys are. This supports Taiwan. We have talked about that for a long period of time. This bill accelerates that program. It prevents Chinese intellectual property theft. I have a whole list here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be inserted after my comments. What I would like to wind up with, if I brought it--I did. Two years ago, I put this card together. This is when I realized the media hates Trump. People are not aware of all the good things he did in those first couple of years. People were not aware of it. First of all, on the card--I am going to run over these. Biggest tax cuts. We learned a lesson back there during a Democratic administration. John Kennedy said the best way to get more revenue in for the Great Society programs that they were advocating at that time was to reduce marginal rates and that would increase revenue. It did. Unfortunately, John Kennedy died before he could reap the benefits that came with that, but it worked. Of course, others followed him, including Presidents Clinton, President Bush, and others, by reducing the rates. That also increased the revenue. What this President did that was different than the rest of them is that he did not just decrease the rates--the tax rates--but he also decreased all the overregulation. How many people know that, back during the Obama administration, we had a rule that we were adhering to that said if you were a domestic oil and gas producer in the United States of America and you were in competition with China or somebody else, you had to give them our whole playbook on how we put together our system over here and all the elements. And that put us at a disadvantage with our competitors in China and in energy. I was happy that I used to say, after Obama got out of office, that the war on fossil fuels was over for a while. Look at the energy dominance now. We are the global leader in oil and gas production: a 277-percent growth in crude exports, a 132-percent increase in coal exports, a 52-percent increase in natural gas exports. These are exports. That is what we are doing now in the United States as a result of the efforts of this President and bringing our economy around. Crackdown on illegal migration. Nobody wanted the wall, they said. Now people realize that is where a lot of the bad people were getting in. We moved the Embassy. Every Democrat and Republican President, in my memory, tried to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. They all talked about it. This President went in and did it. He enacted the infrastructure bill, the WRDA bill, or the Water Resources Development Act, and the FAA reauthorization. And on the judges we have, not just Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but I think our number is up to about 225 new judges. He repealed the overregulation of the Dodd-Frank rules. Anyone in business will tell you that that was one of the major accomplishments of this President, President Trump--and the record employment. But then I would say that the 10th and last one I mention to everyone who will listen is what he did for the military. We went from the time of dropping down in the last 5 years of the Obama administration by 25 percent, while China was increasing 83 percent. Now we have rebuilt that military. That is why the NDAA is so significant right now and to make sure that that gets passed and that we are able to have that. That is what this vote is all about. The NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is the most important bill of the year. That is why we are doing it, and that is why we are here today during this holiday season | 2020-01-06 | Mr. INHOFE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7961 | null | 2,023 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was then the drama around the COVID-19 relief bill. It was hard to describe what we went through in the last week to 10 days with messages from the White House. I wish that the President and those around him, advising him, would have called to mind the 335,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to this deadly pandemic and the many more who have lost a family member, friend, or loved one. In Illinois, we have lost 16,000 lives to COVID-19--tragic, historic. I extend my deepest condolences to the friends and families of those who have died or who are fighting this virus. Many are my friends. More than 121,000 Americans spent last night in the hospital--a grim new record of hospitalizations as our heroic nurses and doctors face unrelenting stress from this crisis. I just think, as I reflect on the interviews of these men and women who are on the frontline of healthcare, how stoic they usually are, how controlled they usually are, and how they are losing it now. With the overwhelming numbers they are facing and the terrible prospect of someone's dying with a member of the family being unable to even enter the room in the last minutes of one's life has got to be heartbreaking on a scale that none of us can imagine. Think about doing that every single day. They have done it. I will tell you we will never be able to repay them with our gratitude. They are true American heroes. Many of us returned to Washington this week. As I said, we are celebrating the holidays in a fashion like never before with social distancing, Zooms, FaceTime, and calls with family and loved ones. It is no substitute for the kids being there to open their gifts on Christmas morning, but it is the reality of what we face today. There is some hope on the horizon, and though I have been many times critical of the Trump administration, I do want to give the President credit for the Warp Speed Program. It is amazing, as I read the stories, of what they were able to achieve in discovering two vaccines that can treat Americans and people around the world and keep them safe as they face this coronavirus. It broke all the records in the discovery of these vaccines. As I read about it, I continue to be grateful and want to make sure America recognizes the doctors, the scientists, and the researchers. Barney Graham--I didn't know his name until yesterday--came out of a story published in the New Yorker. He works at the National Institutes of Health. He is given a great deal of credit for the breakthrough in the first two vaccines that have been approved. There are others just like him. I salute Dr. Francis Collins, of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, both of whom have become my friends over the years--and what a job they have done for America. So many more deserve recognition, and I hope there will be an opportunity to give it to them. The fact is, these doses of vaccines are starting to move across the country. Last week, Illinois--I am proud to say--led the Nation. I congratulated our Governor, J.B. Pritzker, yesterday. More than 100,000 healthcare workers received their first shots last week. I asked him why we led, and he said: I don't know. We just put together our own program of distribution, and it worked. Thank goodness it did. Lives will be saved because of it, but there is so much more to do. Progress in administering the vaccine has been slow as we still struggle to reach the hardest hit areas. The rosy projections from the administration have not come to fruition yet, but the fact is, we have two viable vaccines. That is miraculous. I look forward to the new administration's--the Biden administration's--new management in this effort, and I am glad Congress came together to pass a relief bill that included $30 billion for vaccine development and distribution. When the President said he wasn't going to sign this bill, I thought: How can he say that? He should be taking credit, rightfully, for the Warp Speed Program and his role in seeing that program move forward instead of complicating the distribution of the vaccines by threatening to veto the bill. Fortunately, for us, in the end, he signed the bill. On Sunday evening, the President signed the bipartisan annual spending bill and the COVID-19 relief bill. There were complaints about the size of the bill. Well, the entire Federal budget was included in that bill, as well as the COVID-19 relief undertaking, as well as many other bills, such as the Water Resources Development Act. All of these are major pieces of legislation, and they were combined in one bill that went way beyond 5,000 pages. Unfortunately, the President delayed in signing the bill and created needless uncertainty in America, particularly among the unemployed and others who are suffering from this public health and economic crisis. This agreement provides much needed support for many of them, but they will have some delay in receiving their checks because of the President's period of indecision. Enhanced unemployment benefits of $300 a week and an extension of the unemployment program, created under the CARES Act, through March 14 will bring more relief to many millions of families. Possibly the largest single item in the COVID relief bill--$325 billion--went to provide our Nation's ailing small businesses another chance at survival. The Paycheck Protection Program worked in the initial CARES Act, and it was renewed in this undertaking. An extension of the Federal eviction moratorium through January 2021, coupled with $25 billion in emergency rental assistance, will literally mean that people will not be evicted right after Christmas. Approximately, $850 million is going to Illinois to help keep families in their homes during this pandemic. The 15-percent increase in nutrition assistance is certainly needed. It goes through the SNAP program, which was historically known as food stamps, to make sure that families have something on the table. I can tell you that I woke up this morning in Springfield, IL, to look at the front page of the newspaper and learn that an anonymous donor had given our local food bank $500,000. The people at the food bank were, of course, appreciative and said they desperately needed it in my hometown and towns all across America. This increase in food stamp assistance is long overdue, and I am glad it was included. The bill includes a number of important measures, but we have to go to work to make sure that we deal with the sharp turn of an emergency response to this bill and do more. We address the needs required to respond to this pandemic immediately, but more will follow. It was a tough negotiation and an honest compromise, and I was happy to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators who may have gotten the ball rolling--at least we think we did--in order to hand it over to the leaders to finish the job. I think what we have achieved, on a bipartisan basis, was largely included in the final bill, and it addressed the major elements that were necessary. One of the most important items that Congress failed to reach agreement on was funding for State and local governments. States and localities are struggling with increased costs and decreased revenues due to the pandemic. By this summer, my home State of Illinois will have lost more than $5 billion in revenues. I can tell you that this is going to cause pain and cutbacks. This is not money that was lost in our pension system, which has its own share of troubles; it is money that was directly attributable to the downturn in revenues because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It isn't just happening in Illinois; it is happening all around the country--in red and blue States. Our neighboring State of Kentucky, to the south of us, is facing the same hardships we are. Federal funding for States and localities needs to be done for our great cities and great States that are struggling, and I certainly hope that the next President, when he is sworn in on January 20, will take this up as one of his highest priorities. Our Nation's economic recovery is slowed down by budget cuts that will be necessary in States and localities because of this cutback in revenues. Now, the most widely discussed measure of the COVID-19 relief bill is a second round of economic impact payments. Just yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the CASH Act, which is a measure that would increase the direct payments to individuals--adults and children--from $600 to $2,000 for those who earn less than $75,000 a year. The measure passed in the House by a vote of 275 to 174. Over the past several months, we have heard time and again from economists that we run the risk of doing too little, which far outweighs the risk of doing too much when it comes to this economic recovery. The head of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Powell, has really instructed us to keep the foot on the accelerator so that our economy doesn't slump into a recession. At a time when so many American families are laid off, unemployed, and simply struggling to get by, there is nothing more invigorating to the economy than to have a cash infusion. Those with limited resources who are battling to pay bills turn around and spend that money quickly. They don't salt it away for some future rainy day. They need it now. That is why we should seriously consider this. By passing this enhanced measure, we can restore the American public's confidence in Washington and by the fact that we are listening and working together, on a bipartisan basis, to respond. This measure that passed the House of Representatives has the support of the President, Speaker Pelosi, House Democrats, as well as many House Republicans. Leader Schumer and my Senate Democratic colleagues support it. So I hope Senator McConnell--the Republican leader--and his colleagues in the Republican caucus will join us and allow us to pass this bill quickly this week. Let's step up to the plate and get this done. The American people have waited too long for this relief. I, for one, am proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together and passing a meaningful relief bill, but the time for patting one another on the back is over. Let's finish the job. Let's make sure that we have this authorization bill for the Department of Defense and that we come to the rescue of our families across America who need defense against the vagaries of this pandemic and this economy. We can finally see a slight glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. If we want to address the needs of Americans in crisis, it starts with passing this legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7965 | null | 2,024 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was then the drama around the COVID-19 relief bill. It was hard to describe what we went through in the last week to 10 days with messages from the White House. I wish that the President and those around him, advising him, would have called to mind the 335,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to this deadly pandemic and the many more who have lost a family member, friend, or loved one. In Illinois, we have lost 16,000 lives to COVID-19--tragic, historic. I extend my deepest condolences to the friends and families of those who have died or who are fighting this virus. Many are my friends. More than 121,000 Americans spent last night in the hospital--a grim new record of hospitalizations as our heroic nurses and doctors face unrelenting stress from this crisis. I just think, as I reflect on the interviews of these men and women who are on the frontline of healthcare, how stoic they usually are, how controlled they usually are, and how they are losing it now. With the overwhelming numbers they are facing and the terrible prospect of someone's dying with a member of the family being unable to even enter the room in the last minutes of one's life has got to be heartbreaking on a scale that none of us can imagine. Think about doing that every single day. They have done it. I will tell you we will never be able to repay them with our gratitude. They are true American heroes. Many of us returned to Washington this week. As I said, we are celebrating the holidays in a fashion like never before with social distancing, Zooms, FaceTime, and calls with family and loved ones. It is no substitute for the kids being there to open their gifts on Christmas morning, but it is the reality of what we face today. There is some hope on the horizon, and though I have been many times critical of the Trump administration, I do want to give the President credit for the Warp Speed Program. It is amazing, as I read the stories, of what they were able to achieve in discovering two vaccines that can treat Americans and people around the world and keep them safe as they face this coronavirus. It broke all the records in the discovery of these vaccines. As I read about it, I continue to be grateful and want to make sure America recognizes the doctors, the scientists, and the researchers. Barney Graham--I didn't know his name until yesterday--came out of a story published in the New Yorker. He works at the National Institutes of Health. He is given a great deal of credit for the breakthrough in the first two vaccines that have been approved. There are others just like him. I salute Dr. Francis Collins, of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, both of whom have become my friends over the years--and what a job they have done for America. So many more deserve recognition, and I hope there will be an opportunity to give it to them. The fact is, these doses of vaccines are starting to move across the country. Last week, Illinois--I am proud to say--led the Nation. I congratulated our Governor, J.B. Pritzker, yesterday. More than 100,000 healthcare workers received their first shots last week. I asked him why we led, and he said: I don't know. We just put together our own program of distribution, and it worked. Thank goodness it did. Lives will be saved because of it, but there is so much more to do. Progress in administering the vaccine has been slow as we still struggle to reach the hardest hit areas. The rosy projections from the administration have not come to fruition yet, but the fact is, we have two viable vaccines. That is miraculous. I look forward to the new administration's--the Biden administration's--new management in this effort, and I am glad Congress came together to pass a relief bill that included $30 billion for vaccine development and distribution. When the President said he wasn't going to sign this bill, I thought: How can he say that? He should be taking credit, rightfully, for the Warp Speed Program and his role in seeing that program move forward instead of complicating the distribution of the vaccines by threatening to veto the bill. Fortunately, for us, in the end, he signed the bill. On Sunday evening, the President signed the bipartisan annual spending bill and the COVID-19 relief bill. There were complaints about the size of the bill. Well, the entire Federal budget was included in that bill, as well as the COVID-19 relief undertaking, as well as many other bills, such as the Water Resources Development Act. All of these are major pieces of legislation, and they were combined in one bill that went way beyond 5,000 pages. Unfortunately, the President delayed in signing the bill and created needless uncertainty in America, particularly among the unemployed and others who are suffering from this public health and economic crisis. This agreement provides much needed support for many of them, but they will have some delay in receiving their checks because of the President's period of indecision. Enhanced unemployment benefits of $300 a week and an extension of the unemployment program, created under the CARES Act, through March 14 will bring more relief to many millions of families. Possibly the largest single item in the COVID relief bill--$325 billion--went to provide our Nation's ailing small businesses another chance at survival. The Paycheck Protection Program worked in the initial CARES Act, and it was renewed in this undertaking. An extension of the Federal eviction moratorium through January 2021, coupled with $25 billion in emergency rental assistance, will literally mean that people will not be evicted right after Christmas. Approximately, $850 million is going to Illinois to help keep families in their homes during this pandemic. The 15-percent increase in nutrition assistance is certainly needed. It goes through the SNAP program, which was historically known as food stamps, to make sure that families have something on the table. I can tell you that I woke up this morning in Springfield, IL, to look at the front page of the newspaper and learn that an anonymous donor had given our local food bank $500,000. The people at the food bank were, of course, appreciative and said they desperately needed it in my hometown and towns all across America. This increase in food stamp assistance is long overdue, and I am glad it was included. The bill includes a number of important measures, but we have to go to work to make sure that we deal with the sharp turn of an emergency response to this bill and do more. We address the needs required to respond to this pandemic immediately, but more will follow. It was a tough negotiation and an honest compromise, and I was happy to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators who may have gotten the ball rolling--at least we think we did--in order to hand it over to the leaders to finish the job. I think what we have achieved, on a bipartisan basis, was largely included in the final bill, and it addressed the major elements that were necessary. One of the most important items that Congress failed to reach agreement on was funding for State and local governments. States and localities are struggling with increased costs and decreased revenues due to the pandemic. By this summer, my home State of Illinois will have lost more than $5 billion in revenues. I can tell you that this is going to cause pain and cutbacks. This is not money that was lost in our pension system, which has its own share of troubles; it is money that was directly attributable to the downturn in revenues because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It isn't just happening in Illinois; it is happening all around the country--in red and blue States. Our neighboring State of Kentucky, to the south of us, is facing the same hardships we are. Federal funding for States and localities needs to be done for our great cities and great States that are struggling, and I certainly hope that the next President, when he is sworn in on January 20, will take this up as one of his highest priorities. Our Nation's economic recovery is slowed down by budget cuts that will be necessary in States and localities because of this cutback in revenues. Now, the most widely discussed measure of the COVID-19 relief bill is a second round of economic impact payments. Just yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the CASH Act, which is a measure that would increase the direct payments to individuals--adults and children--from $600 to $2,000 for those who earn less than $75,000 a year. The measure passed in the House by a vote of 275 to 174. Over the past several months, we have heard time and again from economists that we run the risk of doing too little, which far outweighs the risk of doing too much when it comes to this economic recovery. The head of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Powell, has really instructed us to keep the foot on the accelerator so that our economy doesn't slump into a recession. At a time when so many American families are laid off, unemployed, and simply struggling to get by, there is nothing more invigorating to the economy than to have a cash infusion. Those with limited resources who are battling to pay bills turn around and spend that money quickly. They don't salt it away for some future rainy day. They need it now. That is why we should seriously consider this. By passing this enhanced measure, we can restore the American public's confidence in Washington and by the fact that we are listening and working together, on a bipartisan basis, to respond. This measure that passed the House of Representatives has the support of the President, Speaker Pelosi, House Democrats, as well as many House Republicans. Leader Schumer and my Senate Democratic colleagues support it. So I hope Senator McConnell--the Republican leader--and his colleagues in the Republican caucus will join us and allow us to pass this bill quickly this week. Let's step up to the plate and get this done. The American people have waited too long for this relief. I, for one, am proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together and passing a meaningful relief bill, but the time for patting one another on the back is over. Let's finish the job. Let's make sure that we have this authorization bill for the Department of Defense and that we come to the rescue of our families across America who need defense against the vagaries of this pandemic and this economy. We can finally see a slight glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. If we want to address the needs of Americans in crisis, it starts with passing this legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7965 | null | 2,025 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was then the drama around the COVID-19 relief bill. It was hard to describe what we went through in the last week to 10 days with messages from the White House. I wish that the President and those around him, advising him, would have called to mind the 335,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to this deadly pandemic and the many more who have lost a family member, friend, or loved one. In Illinois, we have lost 16,000 lives to COVID-19--tragic, historic. I extend my deepest condolences to the friends and families of those who have died or who are fighting this virus. Many are my friends. More than 121,000 Americans spent last night in the hospital--a grim new record of hospitalizations as our heroic nurses and doctors face unrelenting stress from this crisis. I just think, as I reflect on the interviews of these men and women who are on the frontline of healthcare, how stoic they usually are, how controlled they usually are, and how they are losing it now. With the overwhelming numbers they are facing and the terrible prospect of someone's dying with a member of the family being unable to even enter the room in the last minutes of one's life has got to be heartbreaking on a scale that none of us can imagine. Think about doing that every single day. They have done it. I will tell you we will never be able to repay them with our gratitude. They are true American heroes. Many of us returned to Washington this week. As I said, we are celebrating the holidays in a fashion like never before with social distancing, Zooms, FaceTime, and calls with family and loved ones. It is no substitute for the kids being there to open their gifts on Christmas morning, but it is the reality of what we face today. There is some hope on the horizon, and though I have been many times critical of the Trump administration, I do want to give the President credit for the Warp Speed Program. It is amazing, as I read the stories, of what they were able to achieve in discovering two vaccines that can treat Americans and people around the world and keep them safe as they face this coronavirus. It broke all the records in the discovery of these vaccines. As I read about it, I continue to be grateful and want to make sure America recognizes the doctors, the scientists, and the researchers. Barney Graham--I didn't know his name until yesterday--came out of a story published in the New Yorker. He works at the National Institutes of Health. He is given a great deal of credit for the breakthrough in the first two vaccines that have been approved. There are others just like him. I salute Dr. Francis Collins, of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, both of whom have become my friends over the years--and what a job they have done for America. So many more deserve recognition, and I hope there will be an opportunity to give it to them. The fact is, these doses of vaccines are starting to move across the country. Last week, Illinois--I am proud to say--led the Nation. I congratulated our Governor, J.B. Pritzker, yesterday. More than 100,000 healthcare workers received their first shots last week. I asked him why we led, and he said: I don't know. We just put together our own program of distribution, and it worked. Thank goodness it did. Lives will be saved because of it, but there is so much more to do. Progress in administering the vaccine has been slow as we still struggle to reach the hardest hit areas. The rosy projections from the administration have not come to fruition yet, but the fact is, we have two viable vaccines. That is miraculous. I look forward to the new administration's--the Biden administration's--new management in this effort, and I am glad Congress came together to pass a relief bill that included $30 billion for vaccine development and distribution. When the President said he wasn't going to sign this bill, I thought: How can he say that? He should be taking credit, rightfully, for the Warp Speed Program and his role in seeing that program move forward instead of complicating the distribution of the vaccines by threatening to veto the bill. Fortunately, for us, in the end, he signed the bill. On Sunday evening, the President signed the bipartisan annual spending bill and the COVID-19 relief bill. There were complaints about the size of the bill. Well, the entire Federal budget was included in that bill, as well as the COVID-19 relief undertaking, as well as many other bills, such as the Water Resources Development Act. All of these are major pieces of legislation, and they were combined in one bill that went way beyond 5,000 pages. Unfortunately, the President delayed in signing the bill and created needless uncertainty in America, particularly among the unemployed and others who are suffering from this public health and economic crisis. This agreement provides much needed support for many of them, but they will have some delay in receiving their checks because of the President's period of indecision. Enhanced unemployment benefits of $300 a week and an extension of the unemployment program, created under the CARES Act, through March 14 will bring more relief to many millions of families. Possibly the largest single item in the COVID relief bill--$325 billion--went to provide our Nation's ailing small businesses another chance at survival. The Paycheck Protection Program worked in the initial CARES Act, and it was renewed in this undertaking. An extension of the Federal eviction moratorium through January 2021, coupled with $25 billion in emergency rental assistance, will literally mean that people will not be evicted right after Christmas. Approximately, $850 million is going to Illinois to help keep families in their homes during this pandemic. The 15-percent increase in nutrition assistance is certainly needed. It goes through the SNAP program, which was historically known as food stamps, to make sure that families have something on the table. I can tell you that I woke up this morning in Springfield, IL, to look at the front page of the newspaper and learn that an anonymous donor had given our local food bank $500,000. The people at the food bank were, of course, appreciative and said they desperately needed it in my hometown and towns all across America. This increase in food stamp assistance is long overdue, and I am glad it was included. The bill includes a number of important measures, but we have to go to work to make sure that we deal with the sharp turn of an emergency response to this bill and do more. We address the needs required to respond to this pandemic immediately, but more will follow. It was a tough negotiation and an honest compromise, and I was happy to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators who may have gotten the ball rolling--at least we think we did--in order to hand it over to the leaders to finish the job. I think what we have achieved, on a bipartisan basis, was largely included in the final bill, and it addressed the major elements that were necessary. One of the most important items that Congress failed to reach agreement on was funding for State and local governments. States and localities are struggling with increased costs and decreased revenues due to the pandemic. By this summer, my home State of Illinois will have lost more than $5 billion in revenues. I can tell you that this is going to cause pain and cutbacks. This is not money that was lost in our pension system, which has its own share of troubles; it is money that was directly attributable to the downturn in revenues because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It isn't just happening in Illinois; it is happening all around the country--in red and blue States. Our neighboring State of Kentucky, to the south of us, is facing the same hardships we are. Federal funding for States and localities needs to be done for our great cities and great States that are struggling, and I certainly hope that the next President, when he is sworn in on January 20, will take this up as one of his highest priorities. Our Nation's economic recovery is slowed down by budget cuts that will be necessary in States and localities because of this cutback in revenues. Now, the most widely discussed measure of the COVID-19 relief bill is a second round of economic impact payments. Just yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the CASH Act, which is a measure that would increase the direct payments to individuals--adults and children--from $600 to $2,000 for those who earn less than $75,000 a year. The measure passed in the House by a vote of 275 to 174. Over the past several months, we have heard time and again from economists that we run the risk of doing too little, which far outweighs the risk of doing too much when it comes to this economic recovery. The head of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Powell, has really instructed us to keep the foot on the accelerator so that our economy doesn't slump into a recession. At a time when so many American families are laid off, unemployed, and simply struggling to get by, there is nothing more invigorating to the economy than to have a cash infusion. Those with limited resources who are battling to pay bills turn around and spend that money quickly. They don't salt it away for some future rainy day. They need it now. That is why we should seriously consider this. By passing this enhanced measure, we can restore the American public's confidence in Washington and by the fact that we are listening and working together, on a bipartisan basis, to respond. This measure that passed the House of Representatives has the support of the President, Speaker Pelosi, House Democrats, as well as many House Republicans. Leader Schumer and my Senate Democratic colleagues support it. So I hope Senator McConnell--the Republican leader--and his colleagues in the Republican caucus will join us and allow us to pass this bill quickly this week. Let's step up to the plate and get this done. The American people have waited too long for this relief. I, for one, am proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together and passing a meaningful relief bill, but the time for patting one another on the back is over. Let's finish the job. Let's make sure that we have this authorization bill for the Department of Defense and that we come to the rescue of our families across America who need defense against the vagaries of this pandemic and this economy. We can finally see a slight glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. If we want to address the needs of Americans in crisis, it starts with passing this legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7965 | null | 2,026 |
formal | food stamp | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was then the drama around the COVID-19 relief bill. It was hard to describe what we went through in the last week to 10 days with messages from the White House. I wish that the President and those around him, advising him, would have called to mind the 335,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to this deadly pandemic and the many more who have lost a family member, friend, or loved one. In Illinois, we have lost 16,000 lives to COVID-19--tragic, historic. I extend my deepest condolences to the friends and families of those who have died or who are fighting this virus. Many are my friends. More than 121,000 Americans spent last night in the hospital--a grim new record of hospitalizations as our heroic nurses and doctors face unrelenting stress from this crisis. I just think, as I reflect on the interviews of these men and women who are on the frontline of healthcare, how stoic they usually are, how controlled they usually are, and how they are losing it now. With the overwhelming numbers they are facing and the terrible prospect of someone's dying with a member of the family being unable to even enter the room in the last minutes of one's life has got to be heartbreaking on a scale that none of us can imagine. Think about doing that every single day. They have done it. I will tell you we will never be able to repay them with our gratitude. They are true American heroes. Many of us returned to Washington this week. As I said, we are celebrating the holidays in a fashion like never before with social distancing, Zooms, FaceTime, and calls with family and loved ones. It is no substitute for the kids being there to open their gifts on Christmas morning, but it is the reality of what we face today. There is some hope on the horizon, and though I have been many times critical of the Trump administration, I do want to give the President credit for the Warp Speed Program. It is amazing, as I read the stories, of what they were able to achieve in discovering two vaccines that can treat Americans and people around the world and keep them safe as they face this coronavirus. It broke all the records in the discovery of these vaccines. As I read about it, I continue to be grateful and want to make sure America recognizes the doctors, the scientists, and the researchers. Barney Graham--I didn't know his name until yesterday--came out of a story published in the New Yorker. He works at the National Institutes of Health. He is given a great deal of credit for the breakthrough in the first two vaccines that have been approved. There are others just like him. I salute Dr. Francis Collins, of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, both of whom have become my friends over the years--and what a job they have done for America. So many more deserve recognition, and I hope there will be an opportunity to give it to them. The fact is, these doses of vaccines are starting to move across the country. Last week, Illinois--I am proud to say--led the Nation. I congratulated our Governor, J.B. Pritzker, yesterday. More than 100,000 healthcare workers received their first shots last week. I asked him why we led, and he said: I don't know. We just put together our own program of distribution, and it worked. Thank goodness it did. Lives will be saved because of it, but there is so much more to do. Progress in administering the vaccine has been slow as we still struggle to reach the hardest hit areas. The rosy projections from the administration have not come to fruition yet, but the fact is, we have two viable vaccines. That is miraculous. I look forward to the new administration's--the Biden administration's--new management in this effort, and I am glad Congress came together to pass a relief bill that included $30 billion for vaccine development and distribution. When the President said he wasn't going to sign this bill, I thought: How can he say that? He should be taking credit, rightfully, for the Warp Speed Program and his role in seeing that program move forward instead of complicating the distribution of the vaccines by threatening to veto the bill. Fortunately, for us, in the end, he signed the bill. On Sunday evening, the President signed the bipartisan annual spending bill and the COVID-19 relief bill. There were complaints about the size of the bill. Well, the entire Federal budget was included in that bill, as well as the COVID-19 relief undertaking, as well as many other bills, such as the Water Resources Development Act. All of these are major pieces of legislation, and they were combined in one bill that went way beyond 5,000 pages. Unfortunately, the President delayed in signing the bill and created needless uncertainty in America, particularly among the unemployed and others who are suffering from this public health and economic crisis. This agreement provides much needed support for many of them, but they will have some delay in receiving their checks because of the President's period of indecision. Enhanced unemployment benefits of $300 a week and an extension of the unemployment program, created under the CARES Act, through March 14 will bring more relief to many millions of families. Possibly the largest single item in the COVID relief bill--$325 billion--went to provide our Nation's ailing small businesses another chance at survival. The Paycheck Protection Program worked in the initial CARES Act, and it was renewed in this undertaking. An extension of the Federal eviction moratorium through January 2021, coupled with $25 billion in emergency rental assistance, will literally mean that people will not be evicted right after Christmas. Approximately, $850 million is going to Illinois to help keep families in their homes during this pandemic. The 15-percent increase in nutrition assistance is certainly needed. It goes through the SNAP program, which was historically known as food stamps, to make sure that families have something on the table. I can tell you that I woke up this morning in Springfield, IL, to look at the front page of the newspaper and learn that an anonymous donor had given our local food bank $500,000. The people at the food bank were, of course, appreciative and said they desperately needed it in my hometown and towns all across America. This increase in food stamp assistance is long overdue, and I am glad it was included. The bill includes a number of important measures, but we have to go to work to make sure that we deal with the sharp turn of an emergency response to this bill and do more. We address the needs required to respond to this pandemic immediately, but more will follow. It was a tough negotiation and an honest compromise, and I was happy to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators who may have gotten the ball rolling--at least we think we did--in order to hand it over to the leaders to finish the job. I think what we have achieved, on a bipartisan basis, was largely included in the final bill, and it addressed the major elements that were necessary. One of the most important items that Congress failed to reach agreement on was funding for State and local governments. States and localities are struggling with increased costs and decreased revenues due to the pandemic. By this summer, my home State of Illinois will have lost more than $5 billion in revenues. I can tell you that this is going to cause pain and cutbacks. This is not money that was lost in our pension system, which has its own share of troubles; it is money that was directly attributable to the downturn in revenues because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It isn't just happening in Illinois; it is happening all around the country--in red and blue States. Our neighboring State of Kentucky, to the south of us, is facing the same hardships we are. Federal funding for States and localities needs to be done for our great cities and great States that are struggling, and I certainly hope that the next President, when he is sworn in on January 20, will take this up as one of his highest priorities. Our Nation's economic recovery is slowed down by budget cuts that will be necessary in States and localities because of this cutback in revenues. Now, the most widely discussed measure of the COVID-19 relief bill is a second round of economic impact payments. Just yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the CASH Act, which is a measure that would increase the direct payments to individuals--adults and children--from $600 to $2,000 for those who earn less than $75,000 a year. The measure passed in the House by a vote of 275 to 174. Over the past several months, we have heard time and again from economists that we run the risk of doing too little, which far outweighs the risk of doing too much when it comes to this economic recovery. The head of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Powell, has really instructed us to keep the foot on the accelerator so that our economy doesn't slump into a recession. At a time when so many American families are laid off, unemployed, and simply struggling to get by, there is nothing more invigorating to the economy than to have a cash infusion. Those with limited resources who are battling to pay bills turn around and spend that money quickly. They don't salt it away for some future rainy day. They need it now. That is why we should seriously consider this. By passing this enhanced measure, we can restore the American public's confidence in Washington and by the fact that we are listening and working together, on a bipartisan basis, to respond. This measure that passed the House of Representatives has the support of the President, Speaker Pelosi, House Democrats, as well as many House Republicans. Leader Schumer and my Senate Democratic colleagues support it. So I hope Senator McConnell--the Republican leader--and his colleagues in the Republican caucus will join us and allow us to pass this bill quickly this week. Let's step up to the plate and get this done. The American people have waited too long for this relief. I, for one, am proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together and passing a meaningful relief bill, but the time for patting one another on the back is over. Let's finish the job. Let's make sure that we have this authorization bill for the Department of Defense and that we come to the rescue of our families across America who need defense against the vagaries of this pandemic and this economy. We can finally see a slight glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. If we want to address the needs of Americans in crisis, it starts with passing this legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7965 | null | 2,027 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was then the drama around the COVID-19 relief bill. It was hard to describe what we went through in the last week to 10 days with messages from the White House. I wish that the President and those around him, advising him, would have called to mind the 335,000 Americans who have lost their lives due to this deadly pandemic and the many more who have lost a family member, friend, or loved one. In Illinois, we have lost 16,000 lives to COVID-19--tragic, historic. I extend my deepest condolences to the friends and families of those who have died or who are fighting this virus. Many are my friends. More than 121,000 Americans spent last night in the hospital--a grim new record of hospitalizations as our heroic nurses and doctors face unrelenting stress from this crisis. I just think, as I reflect on the interviews of these men and women who are on the frontline of healthcare, how stoic they usually are, how controlled they usually are, and how they are losing it now. With the overwhelming numbers they are facing and the terrible prospect of someone's dying with a member of the family being unable to even enter the room in the last minutes of one's life has got to be heartbreaking on a scale that none of us can imagine. Think about doing that every single day. They have done it. I will tell you we will never be able to repay them with our gratitude. They are true American heroes. Many of us returned to Washington this week. As I said, we are celebrating the holidays in a fashion like never before with social distancing, Zooms, FaceTime, and calls with family and loved ones. It is no substitute for the kids being there to open their gifts on Christmas morning, but it is the reality of what we face today. There is some hope on the horizon, and though I have been many times critical of the Trump administration, I do want to give the President credit for the Warp Speed Program. It is amazing, as I read the stories, of what they were able to achieve in discovering two vaccines that can treat Americans and people around the world and keep them safe as they face this coronavirus. It broke all the records in the discovery of these vaccines. As I read about it, I continue to be grateful and want to make sure America recognizes the doctors, the scientists, and the researchers. Barney Graham--I didn't know his name until yesterday--came out of a story published in the New Yorker. He works at the National Institutes of Health. He is given a great deal of credit for the breakthrough in the first two vaccines that have been approved. There are others just like him. I salute Dr. Francis Collins, of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, both of whom have become my friends over the years--and what a job they have done for America. So many more deserve recognition, and I hope there will be an opportunity to give it to them. The fact is, these doses of vaccines are starting to move across the country. Last week, Illinois--I am proud to say--led the Nation. I congratulated our Governor, J.B. Pritzker, yesterday. More than 100,000 healthcare workers received their first shots last week. I asked him why we led, and he said: I don't know. We just put together our own program of distribution, and it worked. Thank goodness it did. Lives will be saved because of it, but there is so much more to do. Progress in administering the vaccine has been slow as we still struggle to reach the hardest hit areas. The rosy projections from the administration have not come to fruition yet, but the fact is, we have two viable vaccines. That is miraculous. I look forward to the new administration's--the Biden administration's--new management in this effort, and I am glad Congress came together to pass a relief bill that included $30 billion for vaccine development and distribution. When the President said he wasn't going to sign this bill, I thought: How can he say that? He should be taking credit, rightfully, for the Warp Speed Program and his role in seeing that program move forward instead of complicating the distribution of the vaccines by threatening to veto the bill. Fortunately, for us, in the end, he signed the bill. On Sunday evening, the President signed the bipartisan annual spending bill and the COVID-19 relief bill. There were complaints about the size of the bill. Well, the entire Federal budget was included in that bill, as well as the COVID-19 relief undertaking, as well as many other bills, such as the Water Resources Development Act. All of these are major pieces of legislation, and they were combined in one bill that went way beyond 5,000 pages. Unfortunately, the President delayed in signing the bill and created needless uncertainty in America, particularly among the unemployed and others who are suffering from this public health and economic crisis. This agreement provides much needed support for many of them, but they will have some delay in receiving their checks because of the President's period of indecision. Enhanced unemployment benefits of $300 a week and an extension of the unemployment program, created under the CARES Act, through March 14 will bring more relief to many millions of families. Possibly the largest single item in the COVID relief bill--$325 billion--went to provide our Nation's ailing small businesses another chance at survival. The Paycheck Protection Program worked in the initial CARES Act, and it was renewed in this undertaking. An extension of the Federal eviction moratorium through January 2021, coupled with $25 billion in emergency rental assistance, will literally mean that people will not be evicted right after Christmas. Approximately, $850 million is going to Illinois to help keep families in their homes during this pandemic. The 15-percent increase in nutrition assistance is certainly needed. It goes through the SNAP program, which was historically known as food stamps, to make sure that families have something on the table. I can tell you that I woke up this morning in Springfield, IL, to look at the front page of the newspaper and learn that an anonymous donor had given our local food bank $500,000. The people at the food bank were, of course, appreciative and said they desperately needed it in my hometown and towns all across America. This increase in food stamp assistance is long overdue, and I am glad it was included. The bill includes a number of important measures, but we have to go to work to make sure that we deal with the sharp turn of an emergency response to this bill and do more. We address the needs required to respond to this pandemic immediately, but more will follow. It was a tough negotiation and an honest compromise, and I was happy to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators who may have gotten the ball rolling--at least we think we did--in order to hand it over to the leaders to finish the job. I think what we have achieved, on a bipartisan basis, was largely included in the final bill, and it addressed the major elements that were necessary. One of the most important items that Congress failed to reach agreement on was funding for State and local governments. States and localities are struggling with increased costs and decreased revenues due to the pandemic. By this summer, my home State of Illinois will have lost more than $5 billion in revenues. I can tell you that this is going to cause pain and cutbacks. This is not money that was lost in our pension system, which has its own share of troubles; it is money that was directly attributable to the downturn in revenues because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It isn't just happening in Illinois; it is happening all around the country--in red and blue States. Our neighboring State of Kentucky, to the south of us, is facing the same hardships we are. Federal funding for States and localities needs to be done for our great cities and great States that are struggling, and I certainly hope that the next President, when he is sworn in on January 20, will take this up as one of his highest priorities. Our Nation's economic recovery is slowed down by budget cuts that will be necessary in States and localities because of this cutback in revenues. Now, the most widely discussed measure of the COVID-19 relief bill is a second round of economic impact payments. Just yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the CASH Act, which is a measure that would increase the direct payments to individuals--adults and children--from $600 to $2,000 for those who earn less than $75,000 a year. The measure passed in the House by a vote of 275 to 174. Over the past several months, we have heard time and again from economists that we run the risk of doing too little, which far outweighs the risk of doing too much when it comes to this economic recovery. The head of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Powell, has really instructed us to keep the foot on the accelerator so that our economy doesn't slump into a recession. At a time when so many American families are laid off, unemployed, and simply struggling to get by, there is nothing more invigorating to the economy than to have a cash infusion. Those with limited resources who are battling to pay bills turn around and spend that money quickly. They don't salt it away for some future rainy day. They need it now. That is why we should seriously consider this. By passing this enhanced measure, we can restore the American public's confidence in Washington and by the fact that we are listening and working together, on a bipartisan basis, to respond. This measure that passed the House of Representatives has the support of the President, Speaker Pelosi, House Democrats, as well as many House Republicans. Leader Schumer and my Senate Democratic colleagues support it. So I hope Senator McConnell--the Republican leader--and his colleagues in the Republican caucus will join us and allow us to pass this bill quickly this week. Let's step up to the plate and get this done. The American people have waited too long for this relief. I, for one, am proud of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for coming together and passing a meaningful relief bill, but the time for patting one another on the back is over. Let's finish the job. Let's make sure that we have this authorization bill for the Department of Defense and that we come to the rescue of our families across America who need defense against the vagaries of this pandemic and this economy. We can finally see a slight glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. If we want to address the needs of Americans in crisis, it starts with passing this legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7965 | null | 2,028 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my bipartisan legislation, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Patrick Leahy. This is important legislation that will protect consumers from anticompetitive practices by repealing the outdated antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry. This bill has wide bipartisan support, as well as a strong history of near-unanimous congressional consensus, having passed the House of Representatives three times, most recently this September. In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters that the business of insurance was a form of interstate commerce. This meant that the health insurance industry would be subject to Federal antitrust laws under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance industry began raising uncertainties about whether this meant that States would no longer have authority to regulate insurance. When Congress acted to reaffirm this State authority, in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the insurance industry managed to add a last-minute special-interest loophole that exempted the business of insurance from Federal antitrust laws. It has become clear that this antiquated exemption has effectively given insurance companies the power to collude to drive up prices, restrict competition, and deny consumers choice. The large health insurance companies of today have taken advantage of this exemption to abuse the market and artificially inflate healthcare costs. As a result, consumers are paying higher prices to get basic healthcare services, which couldn't be a worse outcome in the middle of a major pandemic. I recognize concerns have been raised about whether this legislation might impair or create uncertainty regarding the authority of State insurance regulators. I appreciate hearing from all stakeholders and wish to put those concerns to rest by making clear the intent and scope of the bill. This legislation merely amends a peripheral provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act containing an antiquated exemption from Federal antitrust laws as it applies to health insurance companies. It does not in any way interfere with, supersede, or abrogate the authority provided and guaranteed by the McCarran-Ferguson Act to State insurance regulators to regulate the health insurance industry. This legislation would ensure that health insurance companies would be subject to Federal antitrust laws in the same way as the rest of the American economy, including other regulated sectors. Most importantly, as this bill does not disturb any of the authority provided to State insurance regulators under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, it does not empower Federal authorities to interfere with, supersede, or prevent states from regulating the health insurance industry however they see fit. Simply put, this legislation would give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission authority to apply antitrust laws to anticompetitive practices in the health insurance industry. Furthermore, it is the intent of the authors of this legislation that the DOJ and FTC notify and work with states on investigations they have received or are undertaking that involve health insurance entities in their state. The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act will restore full transparency, promote oversight, and encourage competition within the health insurance industry. I look forward to this legislation being signed into law by the President. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DAINES | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7966 | null | 2,029 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | enrolled bills signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on December 22, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Beyer) had signed the following enrolled bills: 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 fisherman. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5852. An act to redesignate the Weir Farm National Historic Site in the State of Connecticut as the ``Weir Farm National Historical Park''. H.R. 6535. An act 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. H.R. 7460. An act to extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was founded, and for other purposes. Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the enrolled bills were signed on December 24, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). enrolled bill signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on December 24, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Beyer) had signed the following enrolled bill: H.R. 133. An act making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, providing coronavirus emergency response and relief, and for other purposes. Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the enrolled bill was signed on December 24, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7967-2 | null | 2,030 |
formal | urban | null | racist | enrolled bills signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on December 22, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Beyer) had signed the following enrolled bills: 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 fisherman. H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for other purposes. H.R. 5852. An act to redesignate the Weir Farm National Historic Site in the State of Connecticut as the ``Weir Farm National Historical Park''. H.R. 6535. An act 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. H.R. 7460. An act to extend the authority for the establishment by the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation of a commemorative work to commemorate the mission of the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the Peace Corps was founded, and for other purposes. Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the enrolled bills were signed on December 24, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). enrolled bill signed Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Secretary of the Senate, on December 24, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Beyer) had signed the following enrolled bill: H.R. 133. An act making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, providing coronavirus emergency response and relief, and for other purposes. Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2019, the enrolled bill was signed on December 24, 2020, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the Acting President pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7967-2 | null | 2,031 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, for over 40 years, inspectors general have acted as independent, nonpartisan watchdogs tasked with preventing and uncovering fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Government. Simply put, inspectors general make sure government is doing what it's supposed to do. To accomplish this immense task, inspectors general must be experienced in oversight, trusted by both political parties, and ready to hit the ground running on any audits, investigations, and other reviews of their agencies. Unfortunately, the nominee for inspector general that we considered last week does not meet this basic test. The Department of Transportation is charged with ensuring that America has the safest, most efficient and modern transportation system in the world, so that Americans are able to travel safely and efficiently by road, rail, or air. The Department has an annual budget of over $87 billion and employs over 55,000 personnel, with a footprint in every State. The DOT inspector general must be ready to oversee the full range of these activities, from every dollar that funds our highways to every safety decision issued by DOT regulators. To meet this task, the office employs over 400 personnel, with an annual budget of over $94 million. Eric Soskin, the nominee for DOT inspector general, is not qualified to oversee an agency of this size and scope, or to lead the activities of one of the largest Offices of Inspector General in the Federal Government. Mr. Soskin does not have any experience managing large organizations. He has never worked in an Office of Inspector General, and he does not have experience in many of the basic activities of such an office, like audits or inspections. Although he has legal experience, he has not focused on DOT or transportation issues at any point in his career. While I appreciate Mr. Soskin's service at the Department of Justice and his enthusiasm for the position, he simply lacks the qualifications to ensure DOT is fulfilling its responsibilities. I am most troubled, however, by the increasing politicization of inspectors general by the President and by the majority. Since 1981, this body has confirmed over 150 inspectors general; until last week, all but two of these nominees had been confirmed by unanimous consent, a voice vote, or a unanimous vote. The reason for this is simple: To do their jobs, inspectors general must be trusted by each member of Congress and by every American, regardless of political party. Until this Congress, when an inspector general has faced significant opposition, the Senate either worked through any concerns or declined to advance the nomination. The majority did not force through partisan or unqualified nominees. That is how we have upheld this institution. That is how we have maintained trust in the independence, qualifications, and integrity of inspectors general. This Congress, we held our first party-line vote in 40 years to confirm a deeply partisan inspector general nominee. We have now confirmed yet another inspector general on a party-line vote during a lameduck session, with a nominee who was already rejected by nearly half of the Commerce Committee and as well as on the Senate floor. The inspector general is a position that continues across administrations. It is one with tremendous authority to look at every agency record, to interview any employee, and to carry out criminal investigations. We cannot transform this institution into one of Democratic inspectors general and Republican inspectors general. This is not and cannot become a political position. Inspectors General hold government accountable to the law and to the American people. And it is our responsibility to protect this institution and reject any nomination that will undermine their independent, nonpartisan work. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-29-pt1-PgS7967 | null | 2,032 |
formal | Bernie Sanders | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago, President Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American history. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II, but we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of President Trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more good news to a lot of people. After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the President expressed interest in furtherexpanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was comfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the President's priorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate process. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday when I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact, requested. Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they tried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the American people. First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even on the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what President Trump actually laid out. Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all households equally--not even close. It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need help, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago. But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have broken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for more cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter of a million dollars--and still qualify for some money. Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only my friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at households in New York and California who make $300,000, in households where nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped during the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say it is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people making $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any disruption at all this past year. Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded . . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . who depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' That is from the editors of the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually agrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling households can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless benefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.'' The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good economic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He points out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted overall household income, relative to the economy, back to its prepandemic levels, if not higher. If specific struggling households need still more help after the huge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not another firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey have pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the deal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help. We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are going to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8 | null | 2,033 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago, President Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American history. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II, but we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of President Trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more good news to a lot of people. After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the President expressed interest in furtherexpanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was comfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the President's priorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate process. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday when I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact, requested. Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they tried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the American people. First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even on the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what President Trump actually laid out. Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all households equally--not even close. It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need help, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago. But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have broken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for more cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter of a million dollars--and still qualify for some money. Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only my friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at households in New York and California who make $300,000, in households where nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped during the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say it is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people making $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any disruption at all this past year. Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded . . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . who depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' That is from the editors of the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually agrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling households can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless benefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.'' The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good economic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He points out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted overall household income, relative to the economy, back to its prepandemic levels, if not higher. If specific struggling households need still more help after the huge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not another firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey have pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the deal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help. We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are going to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8 | null | 2,034 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago, President Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American history. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II, but we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of President Trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more good news to a lot of people. After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the President expressed interest in furtherexpanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was comfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the President's priorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate process. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday when I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact, requested. Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they tried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the American people. First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even on the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what President Trump actually laid out. Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all households equally--not even close. It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need help, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago. But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have broken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for more cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter of a million dollars--and still qualify for some money. Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only my friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at households in New York and California who make $300,000, in households where nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped during the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say it is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people making $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any disruption at all this past year. Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded . . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . who depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' That is from the editors of the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually agrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling households can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless benefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.'' The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good economic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He points out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted overall household income, relative to the economy, back to its prepandemic levels, if not higher. If specific struggling households need still more help after the huge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not another firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey have pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the deal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help. We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are going to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8 | null | 2,035 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago, President Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American history. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II, but we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of President Trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more good news to a lot of people. After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the President expressed interest in furtherexpanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was comfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the President's priorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate process. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday when I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact, requested. Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they tried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the American people. First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even on the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what President Trump actually laid out. Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all households equally--not even close. It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need help, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago. But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have broken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for more cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter of a million dollars--and still qualify for some money. Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only my friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at households in New York and California who make $300,000, in households where nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped during the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say it is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people making $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any disruption at all this past year. Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded . . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . who depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' That is from the editors of the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually agrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling households can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless benefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.'' The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good economic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He points out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted overall household income, relative to the economy, back to its prepandemic levels, if not higher. If specific struggling households need still more help after the huge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not another firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey have pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the deal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help. We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are going to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8 | null | 2,036 |
formal | food stamps | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago, President Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American history. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II, but we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of President Trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more good news to a lot of people. After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the President expressed interest in furtherexpanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was comfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the President's priorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate process. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday when I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact, requested. Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they tried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the American people. First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even on the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what President Trump actually laid out. Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all households equally--not even close. It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need help, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago. But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have broken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for more cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter of a million dollars--and still qualify for some money. Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only my friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at households in New York and California who make $300,000, in households where nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped during the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say it is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people making $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any disruption at all this past year. Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded . . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . who depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' That is from the editors of the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually agrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling households can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless benefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.'' The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good economic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He points out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted overall household income, relative to the economy, back to its prepandemic levels, if not higher. If specific struggling households need still more help after the huge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not another firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey have pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the deal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help. We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are going to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8 | null | 2,037 |
formal | food stamp | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Now let's talk about COVID-19 relief. Four days ago, President Trump signed the second largest rescue package in American history. The largest one was the CARES Act back in March. Due to this pandemic and our massive response, we now have a national debt far larger than our entire economy for the first time since World War II, but we knew our people needed more help, so Congress just passed another nearly $900 billion in emergency relief targeted to those who need it most, a second round of payroll support to save small business jobs, more unemployment aid, vaccine distribution money, funding for safe schools, and much more. In addition to historic amounts of targeted help at the request of President Trump and his team, the package also included another round of direct checks to households, whether or not each household needs the help, whether or not their finances have changed dramatically this past year. Yesterday, Secretary Mnuchin announced households should begin receiving these payments as early as today and this week. That is more good news to a lot of people. After Congress and the administration finalized the bipartisan bill, the President expressed interest in furtherexpanding nontargeted direct payments. So to ensure the President was comfortable signing the bill into law, the Senate committed to beginning one process that would combine three of the President's priorities: larger direct checks, a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and further efforts to review the integrity of our democracy--three of the President's priorities in one Senate process. That was the commitment, and that is what happened yesterday when I introduced text reflecting just what the President had, in fact, requested. Now House and Senate Democrats want something very different. As they tried to do countless times in the past 4 years, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer are trying to pull a fast one on the President and the American people. First of all, they are hoping everyone just forgets about election integrity and Big Tech. They are desperate to ignore those two parts of President Trump's requests, and you can draw your own conclusions. Even on the question of larger checks, the Democrats have tried to warp what President Trump actually laid out. Look, it is no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more nontargeted money, including to many households that have suffered no loss of income during the crisis. COVID-19 has not affected all households equally--not even close. It is hardly clear that the Federal Government's top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year. Our duty is to help get help to the people who actually need help, like we did, to a historic degree, just 4 days ago. But above and beyond that discussion, the Democratic leaders have broken from what President Trump proposed. They quietly changed this proposal in an attempt to let wealthy households suck up even more money. Speaker Pelosi structured her bill so that a family of four would have to earn more than $300,000 in order not--not to qualify for more cash. A family of three could pull in $250,000 per year--a quarter of a million dollars--and still qualify for some money. Democratic leaders want to call this scheme ``survival checks.'' Only my friends Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader could look at households in New York and California who make $300,000, in households where nobody has been laid off, where earnings have not even dropped during the past year, and conclude these rich constituents of theirs need ``survival checks'' financed by taxpayer dollars and borrowed money Everyone sees the game here. These are the same Democrats who proudly blocked the entire aid package for months because they tried to hold out their special tax cuts for rich people in rich States. Now they say it is a matter of survival to send another boatload of cash to people making $300,000, regardless of whether they have experienced any disruption at all this past year. Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left for demanding more huge giveaways with no relationship to actual need. Here is what the Washington Post wrote: ``Especially wrongheaded . . . is the progressive left, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . who depicts the $2,000 as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' That is from the editors of the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, usually their opposite number, actually agrees. These nontargeted ``checks are unnecessary,'' and struggling households can access targeted support like ``expanded jobless benefits, food stamps, child-care subsidies and much more.'' The liberal economist Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, says: ``There is no good economic argument'' for universal $2,000 checks at this moment. He points out the CARES Act and the brandnew law will already have boosted overall household income, relative to the economy, back to its prepandemic levels, if not higher. If specific struggling households need still more help after the huge, historic package that was just signed into law 4 days ago has taken effect, then what they will need is smart, targeted aid, not another firehose of borrowed money that encompasses other people who are doing just fine. So, in my view, colleagues like Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey have pointed this out persuasively. But, more broadly, here is the deal. The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them. The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help. We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago. It struck a balance between broad support for all kinds of households and a lot more targeted relief for those who need help the most. We are going to stay smart; we are going to stay focused; and we are going to continue delivering on the needs for our Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7971-8 | null | 2,038 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to concur with what Senator Schumer said. What he said goes beyond economics. It goes beyond the desperation that tens of millions of working families are facing. It goes beyond the struggles of the people of Vermont or Kentucky. Let me just make it clear for the majority leader that 10 out of the poorest 25 counties in the United States of America are located in Kentucky. So my colleague the majority leader might want to get on the phone and start talking to working families in Kentucky and find out how they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of a $2,000 check per adult. I have the strong feeling that the people of Kentucky will respond no differently than the people of Vermont or New York. The last poll that I saw had 78 percent of the American people saying they wanted and needed that type of help. This discussion, frankly, is not just about the economic struggling of working families in this country. It is not just about the massive levels of income and wealth inequality. It is about basic democracy. Now, what we have to do here on the floor, whether it is Senator Schumer or Senator McConnell or I, is to talk in legalese. That is the language of the U.S. Senate. The stuff sounds pretty complicated to the average person, but all that Senator Schumer and I are asking of the majority leader is very simple: Allow the Members of the U.S. Senate to cast a vote. If you want tovote against $2,000 checks for people in your State, vote against it. I see Senator Toomey here. He has been clear about it. I suspect he will vote against it. I respect his opinion, but all that we are asking for is a vote. What is the problem? In the House, over two-thirds of the Members of that body, including 44 Republicans, voted to say, in this time of economic desperation, working families deserve help, and they deserve a $2,000 check. As Senator Schumer just indicated, we have a very unlikely ally in President Trump. Nobody here has disagreed with Trump more times than I have; yet here is what the leader of the Republican Party writes: ``$2000 ASAP!'' So, even on this issue, amazingly enough, the President of the United States is right. What all of this comes down to, my fellow Americans, is not even whether you agree with Senator Schumer and myself and 78 percent of the American people or whether you agree with Senator McConnell and, I suspect, Senator Toomey. That is fine. It is called democracy. We have differences of opinion. All that I am asking is to give us a vote. What is the problem? Allow the U.S. Senators to cast a vote as to whether they are for the $2,000 check or whether they are against it. We will need, as I understand it, 60 votes to win. That is a big hurdle. I don't know that we are going to win. There are a number of Republicans, to their credit, who have said they are ready to vote for it. I suspect there may be more, when given the opportunity, who will vote for it. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we will lose. I think that would be unfortunate. All that I am asking for right now is to give us the opportunity to vote. What is the problem with that? I will now go to Senate legalese. I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time; and that the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395 and that the Senate immediately vote on the passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7973-2 | null | 2,039 |
formal | working class | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to concur with what Senator Schumer said. What he said goes beyond economics. It goes beyond the desperation that tens of millions of working families are facing. It goes beyond the struggles of the people of Vermont or Kentucky. Let me just make it clear for the majority leader that 10 out of the poorest 25 counties in the United States of America are located in Kentucky. So my colleague the majority leader might want to get on the phone and start talking to working families in Kentucky and find out how they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of a $2,000 check per adult. I have the strong feeling that the people of Kentucky will respond no differently than the people of Vermont or New York. The last poll that I saw had 78 percent of the American people saying they wanted and needed that type of help. This discussion, frankly, is not just about the economic struggling of working families in this country. It is not just about the massive levels of income and wealth inequality. It is about basic democracy. Now, what we have to do here on the floor, whether it is Senator Schumer or Senator McConnell or I, is to talk in legalese. That is the language of the U.S. Senate. The stuff sounds pretty complicated to the average person, but all that Senator Schumer and I are asking of the majority leader is very simple: Allow the Members of the U.S. Senate to cast a vote. If you want tovote against $2,000 checks for people in your State, vote against it. I see Senator Toomey here. He has been clear about it. I suspect he will vote against it. I respect his opinion, but all that we are asking for is a vote. What is the problem? In the House, over two-thirds of the Members of that body, including 44 Republicans, voted to say, in this time of economic desperation, working families deserve help, and they deserve a $2,000 check. As Senator Schumer just indicated, we have a very unlikely ally in President Trump. Nobody here has disagreed with Trump more times than I have; yet here is what the leader of the Republican Party writes: ``$2000 ASAP!'' So, even on this issue, amazingly enough, the President of the United States is right. What all of this comes down to, my fellow Americans, is not even whether you agree with Senator Schumer and myself and 78 percent of the American people or whether you agree with Senator McConnell and, I suspect, Senator Toomey. That is fine. It is called democracy. We have differences of opinion. All that I am asking is to give us a vote. What is the problem? Allow the U.S. Senators to cast a vote as to whether they are for the $2,000 check or whether they are against it. We will need, as I understand it, 60 votes to win. That is a big hurdle. I don't know that we are going to win. There are a number of Republicans, to their credit, who have said they are ready to vote for it. I suspect there may be more, when given the opportunity, who will vote for it. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we will lose. I think that would be unfortunate. All that I am asking for right now is to give us the opportunity to vote. What is the problem with that? I will now go to Senate legalese. I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time; and that the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395 and that the Senate immediately vote on the passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7973-2 | null | 2,040 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Vermont. He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue. On every single part of this debate, Senator Sanders is right; the Republicans are wrong. We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. We have a healthcare crisis, we have an unemployment crisis, we have a hunger crisis, we have a housing crisis, we have an addiction crisis, and we have a moral crisis in this country. The U.S. Government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. There is a crisis of faith that the American people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. Well, this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. That is our job Tony Fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. We know what is coming, and yet we are not responding. We know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. A program, Operation Warp Speed, was created to create a vaccine, but because for 7 months the Republicans have refused to fund the public healthsystem of our country at the State and local level, we have ``Operation Snail Speed'' to put the vaccinations in the arms of the American people. It was anticipatable. Tony Fauci and others were warning us back in May and June and July that there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. We got the warning. The Republicans refused to heed that warning. And here we are now, without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in ICUs all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the Federal Government to help those States and local communities to deal with that crisis. Sometimes Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt--deal with benign neglect. What has happened with the Republicans this year is that they created a program which is designed neglect. It is an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed, and asked, on top of that, to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms, but without the extra resources. And what do they do on the Republican side? They throw out these red herrings--so many red herrings that you would need to build an aquarium in the well here of the Senate in order to deal with all of them--that gets away from the central issue: Yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to Americans who are going to need it through what Tony Fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic? Yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? Here is what we do know. Republicans seem more focused on funding the Defense Department than they do on funding the defenseless in our country, and Americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. The headlines are screaming that this panic, which is absolutely understandable and based upon fact, is sweeping our country. There is protection that the Federal Government should be providing to these families. We hear it. They are hungry. They could be without their homes. The addiction crisis is rising. They need help in their families. So from my perspective, we have a moment in time, and Donald Trump happens to agree with us--even though a broken clock is right twice a day. And we do agree with him. He is right. We do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. As we watch more and more of our American loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. They are having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months, and the U.S. Government has an obligation to help working people who, through no fault of their own, are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all the financial security they have earned be washed away. And yet the Republicans want to put another ``Operation Snail Speed'' in place. The damage to these families is anticipatable. We can see what is unfolding. Dr. Fauci is telling us that we are at the worst part of the pandemic and it is going to continue. So let us act in anticipation. Louis Pasteur used to say that ``chance favors the prepared mind.'' That is what Dr. Tony Fauci is telling us. Let us prepare. Let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. Just in Massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before Christmas. Food banks across Massachusetts and across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand with families who never faced food insecurity before. People are literally starving, cold, and without homes. Meanwhile, the majority leader and Republican leadership would rather head home for the New Year and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families. For millions of Americans, this will be a New Year holiday where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. Republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 in direct cash payments to working Americans would be too expensive, that it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. I have to ask, though, where was this outrage when Republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires and corporations? These are the crocodile tears from the right, as Americans are shedding real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from, the eviction notice on the front door, or losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. Americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is ``sufficient'' as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. The rich get richer, and the rest are there left suffering. They have had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to those companies that are actually laying off workers. Americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as Donald Trump and his Republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. Americans need support. They need to be able to trust their government, and they need $2,000 now. So that is the issue: Yes or no, up or down, on providing $2,000 to Americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395; that the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7974 | null | 2,041 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Vermont. He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue. On every single part of this debate, Senator Sanders is right; the Republicans are wrong. We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. We have a healthcare crisis, we have an unemployment crisis, we have a hunger crisis, we have a housing crisis, we have an addiction crisis, and we have a moral crisis in this country. The U.S. Government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. There is a crisis of faith that the American people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. Well, this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. That is our job Tony Fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. We know what is coming, and yet we are not responding. We know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. A program, Operation Warp Speed, was created to create a vaccine, but because for 7 months the Republicans have refused to fund the public healthsystem of our country at the State and local level, we have ``Operation Snail Speed'' to put the vaccinations in the arms of the American people. It was anticipatable. Tony Fauci and others were warning us back in May and June and July that there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. We got the warning. The Republicans refused to heed that warning. And here we are now, without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in ICUs all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the Federal Government to help those States and local communities to deal with that crisis. Sometimes Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt--deal with benign neglect. What has happened with the Republicans this year is that they created a program which is designed neglect. It is an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed, and asked, on top of that, to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms, but without the extra resources. And what do they do on the Republican side? They throw out these red herrings--so many red herrings that you would need to build an aquarium in the well here of the Senate in order to deal with all of them--that gets away from the central issue: Yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to Americans who are going to need it through what Tony Fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic? Yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? Here is what we do know. Republicans seem more focused on funding the Defense Department than they do on funding the defenseless in our country, and Americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. The headlines are screaming that this panic, which is absolutely understandable and based upon fact, is sweeping our country. There is protection that the Federal Government should be providing to these families. We hear it. They are hungry. They could be without their homes. The addiction crisis is rising. They need help in their families. So from my perspective, we have a moment in time, and Donald Trump happens to agree with us--even though a broken clock is right twice a day. And we do agree with him. He is right. We do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. As we watch more and more of our American loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. They are having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months, and the U.S. Government has an obligation to help working people who, through no fault of their own, are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all the financial security they have earned be washed away. And yet the Republicans want to put another ``Operation Snail Speed'' in place. The damage to these families is anticipatable. We can see what is unfolding. Dr. Fauci is telling us that we are at the worst part of the pandemic and it is going to continue. So let us act in anticipation. Louis Pasteur used to say that ``chance favors the prepared mind.'' That is what Dr. Tony Fauci is telling us. Let us prepare. Let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. Just in Massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before Christmas. Food banks across Massachusetts and across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand with families who never faced food insecurity before. People are literally starving, cold, and without homes. Meanwhile, the majority leader and Republican leadership would rather head home for the New Year and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families. For millions of Americans, this will be a New Year holiday where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. Republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 in direct cash payments to working Americans would be too expensive, that it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. I have to ask, though, where was this outrage when Republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires and corporations? These are the crocodile tears from the right, as Americans are shedding real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from, the eviction notice on the front door, or losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. Americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is ``sufficient'' as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. The rich get richer, and the rest are there left suffering. They have had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to those companies that are actually laying off workers. Americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as Donald Trump and his Republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. Americans need support. They need to be able to trust their government, and they need $2,000 now. So that is the issue: Yes or no, up or down, on providing $2,000 to Americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395; that the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7974 | null | 2,042 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Vermont. He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue. On every single part of this debate, Senator Sanders is right; the Republicans are wrong. We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. We have a healthcare crisis, we have an unemployment crisis, we have a hunger crisis, we have a housing crisis, we have an addiction crisis, and we have a moral crisis in this country. The U.S. Government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. There is a crisis of faith that the American people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. Well, this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. That is our job Tony Fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. We know what is coming, and yet we are not responding. We know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. A program, Operation Warp Speed, was created to create a vaccine, but because for 7 months the Republicans have refused to fund the public healthsystem of our country at the State and local level, we have ``Operation Snail Speed'' to put the vaccinations in the arms of the American people. It was anticipatable. Tony Fauci and others were warning us back in May and June and July that there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. We got the warning. The Republicans refused to heed that warning. And here we are now, without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in ICUs all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the Federal Government to help those States and local communities to deal with that crisis. Sometimes Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt--deal with benign neglect. What has happened with the Republicans this year is that they created a program which is designed neglect. It is an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed, and asked, on top of that, to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms, but without the extra resources. And what do they do on the Republican side? They throw out these red herrings--so many red herrings that you would need to build an aquarium in the well here of the Senate in order to deal with all of them--that gets away from the central issue: Yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to Americans who are going to need it through what Tony Fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic? Yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? Here is what we do know. Republicans seem more focused on funding the Defense Department than they do on funding the defenseless in our country, and Americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. The headlines are screaming that this panic, which is absolutely understandable and based upon fact, is sweeping our country. There is protection that the Federal Government should be providing to these families. We hear it. They are hungry. They could be without their homes. The addiction crisis is rising. They need help in their families. So from my perspective, we have a moment in time, and Donald Trump happens to agree with us--even though a broken clock is right twice a day. And we do agree with him. He is right. We do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. As we watch more and more of our American loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. They are having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months, and the U.S. Government has an obligation to help working people who, through no fault of their own, are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all the financial security they have earned be washed away. And yet the Republicans want to put another ``Operation Snail Speed'' in place. The damage to these families is anticipatable. We can see what is unfolding. Dr. Fauci is telling us that we are at the worst part of the pandemic and it is going to continue. So let us act in anticipation. Louis Pasteur used to say that ``chance favors the prepared mind.'' That is what Dr. Tony Fauci is telling us. Let us prepare. Let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. Just in Massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before Christmas. Food banks across Massachusetts and across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand with families who never faced food insecurity before. People are literally starving, cold, and without homes. Meanwhile, the majority leader and Republican leadership would rather head home for the New Year and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families. For millions of Americans, this will be a New Year holiday where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. Republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 in direct cash payments to working Americans would be too expensive, that it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. I have to ask, though, where was this outrage when Republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires and corporations? These are the crocodile tears from the right, as Americans are shedding real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from, the eviction notice on the front door, or losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. Americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is ``sufficient'' as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. The rich get richer, and the rest are there left suffering. They have had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to those companies that are actually laying off workers. Americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as Donald Trump and his Republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. Americans need support. They need to be able to trust their government, and they need $2,000 now. So that is the issue: Yes or no, up or down, on providing $2,000 to Americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395; that the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7974 | null | 2,043 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Vermont. He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue. On every single part of this debate, Senator Sanders is right; the Republicans are wrong. We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. We have a healthcare crisis, we have an unemployment crisis, we have a hunger crisis, we have a housing crisis, we have an addiction crisis, and we have a moral crisis in this country. The U.S. Government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. There is a crisis of faith that the American people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. Well, this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. That is our job Tony Fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. We know what is coming, and yet we are not responding. We know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. A program, Operation Warp Speed, was created to create a vaccine, but because for 7 months the Republicans have refused to fund the public healthsystem of our country at the State and local level, we have ``Operation Snail Speed'' to put the vaccinations in the arms of the American people. It was anticipatable. Tony Fauci and others were warning us back in May and June and July that there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. We got the warning. The Republicans refused to heed that warning. And here we are now, without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in ICUs all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the Federal Government to help those States and local communities to deal with that crisis. Sometimes Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt--deal with benign neglect. What has happened with the Republicans this year is that they created a program which is designed neglect. It is an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed, and asked, on top of that, to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms, but without the extra resources. And what do they do on the Republican side? They throw out these red herrings--so many red herrings that you would need to build an aquarium in the well here of the Senate in order to deal with all of them--that gets away from the central issue: Yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to Americans who are going to need it through what Tony Fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic? Yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? Here is what we do know. Republicans seem more focused on funding the Defense Department than they do on funding the defenseless in our country, and Americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. The headlines are screaming that this panic, which is absolutely understandable and based upon fact, is sweeping our country. There is protection that the Federal Government should be providing to these families. We hear it. They are hungry. They could be without their homes. The addiction crisis is rising. They need help in their families. So from my perspective, we have a moment in time, and Donald Trump happens to agree with us--even though a broken clock is right twice a day. And we do agree with him. He is right. We do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. As we watch more and more of our American loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. They are having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months, and the U.S. Government has an obligation to help working people who, through no fault of their own, are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all the financial security they have earned be washed away. And yet the Republicans want to put another ``Operation Snail Speed'' in place. The damage to these families is anticipatable. We can see what is unfolding. Dr. Fauci is telling us that we are at the worst part of the pandemic and it is going to continue. So let us act in anticipation. Louis Pasteur used to say that ``chance favors the prepared mind.'' That is what Dr. Tony Fauci is telling us. Let us prepare. Let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. Just in Massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before Christmas. Food banks across Massachusetts and across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand with families who never faced food insecurity before. People are literally starving, cold, and without homes. Meanwhile, the majority leader and Republican leadership would rather head home for the New Year and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families. For millions of Americans, this will be a New Year holiday where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. Republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 in direct cash payments to working Americans would be too expensive, that it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. I have to ask, though, where was this outrage when Republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires and corporations? These are the crocodile tears from the right, as Americans are shedding real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from, the eviction notice on the front door, or losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. Americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is ``sufficient'' as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. The rich get richer, and the rest are there left suffering. They have had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to those companies that are actually laying off workers. Americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as Donald Trump and his Republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. Americans need support. They need to be able to trust their government, and they need $2,000 now. So that is the issue: Yes or no, up or down, on providing $2,000 to Americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395; that the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7974 | null | 2,044 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Vermont. He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue. On every single part of this debate, Senator Sanders is right; the Republicans are wrong. We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. We have a healthcare crisis, we have an unemployment crisis, we have a hunger crisis, we have a housing crisis, we have an addiction crisis, and we have a moral crisis in this country. The U.S. Government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. There is a crisis of faith that the American people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. Well, this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. That is our job Tony Fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. We know what is coming, and yet we are not responding. We know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. A program, Operation Warp Speed, was created to create a vaccine, but because for 7 months the Republicans have refused to fund the public healthsystem of our country at the State and local level, we have ``Operation Snail Speed'' to put the vaccinations in the arms of the American people. It was anticipatable. Tony Fauci and others were warning us back in May and June and July that there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. We got the warning. The Republicans refused to heed that warning. And here we are now, without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in ICUs all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the Federal Government to help those States and local communities to deal with that crisis. Sometimes Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt--deal with benign neglect. What has happened with the Republicans this year is that they created a program which is designed neglect. It is an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed, and asked, on top of that, to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms, but without the extra resources. And what do they do on the Republican side? They throw out these red herrings--so many red herrings that you would need to build an aquarium in the well here of the Senate in order to deal with all of them--that gets away from the central issue: Yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to Americans who are going to need it through what Tony Fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic? Yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? Here is what we do know. Republicans seem more focused on funding the Defense Department than they do on funding the defenseless in our country, and Americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. The headlines are screaming that this panic, which is absolutely understandable and based upon fact, is sweeping our country. There is protection that the Federal Government should be providing to these families. We hear it. They are hungry. They could be without their homes. The addiction crisis is rising. They need help in their families. So from my perspective, we have a moment in time, and Donald Trump happens to agree with us--even though a broken clock is right twice a day. And we do agree with him. He is right. We do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. As we watch more and more of our American loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. They are having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months, and the U.S. Government has an obligation to help working people who, through no fault of their own, are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all the financial security they have earned be washed away. And yet the Republicans want to put another ``Operation Snail Speed'' in place. The damage to these families is anticipatable. We can see what is unfolding. Dr. Fauci is telling us that we are at the worst part of the pandemic and it is going to continue. So let us act in anticipation. Louis Pasteur used to say that ``chance favors the prepared mind.'' That is what Dr. Tony Fauci is telling us. Let us prepare. Let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. Just in Massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before Christmas. Food banks across Massachusetts and across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand with families who never faced food insecurity before. People are literally starving, cold, and without homes. Meanwhile, the majority leader and Republican leadership would rather head home for the New Year and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families. For millions of Americans, this will be a New Year holiday where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. Republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 in direct cash payments to working Americans would be too expensive, that it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. I have to ask, though, where was this outrage when Republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires and corporations? These are the crocodile tears from the right, as Americans are shedding real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from, the eviction notice on the front door, or losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. Americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is ``sufficient'' as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. The rich get richer, and the rest are there left suffering. They have had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to those companies that are actually laying off workers. Americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as Donald Trump and his Republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. Americans need support. They need to be able to trust their government, and they need $2,000 now. So that is the issue: Yes or no, up or down, on providing $2,000 to Americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395; that the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7974 | null | 2,045 |
formal | working class | null | racist | Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Vermont. He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue. On every single part of this debate, Senator Sanders is right; the Republicans are wrong. We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country. We have a healthcare crisis, we have an unemployment crisis, we have a hunger crisis, we have a housing crisis, we have an addiction crisis, and we have a moral crisis in this country. The U.S. Government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation of families in our country at this time. There is a crisis of faith that the American people have in its government's ability to respond to human suffering. Well, this institution has been created to respond to human suffering. That is our job Tony Fauci has made it very clear that the worst of the pandemic is ahead of us, not behind us. We know what is coming, and yet we are not responding. We know this is not going away soon, and yet we are not responding. A program, Operation Warp Speed, was created to create a vaccine, but because for 7 months the Republicans have refused to fund the public healthsystem of our country at the State and local level, we have ``Operation Snail Speed'' to put the vaccinations in the arms of the American people. It was anticipatable. Tony Fauci and others were warning us back in May and June and July that there would be a second wave and the second wave could be bigger. We got the warning. The Republicans refused to heed that warning. And here we are now, without the public health infrastructure to deal with the overflow capacity in emergency rooms, in ICUs all across the country, while simultaneously asking those same medical institutions to put vaccinations in the arms of healthy people, without the resources provided by the Federal Government to help those States and local communities to deal with that crisis. Sometimes Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say that when you deal with an issue you deal with it with benign neglect if you don't want to help or you don't want to hurt--deal with benign neglect. What has happened with the Republicans this year is that they created a program which is designed neglect. It is an actual plan not to provide the funding, not to provide the help for those families, for those communities, for those institutions that are now being overwhelmed, and asked, on top of that, to put this extra burden of putting vaccinations in people's arms, but without the extra resources. And what do they do on the Republican side? They throw out these red herrings--so many red herrings that you would need to build an aquarium in the well here of the Senate in order to deal with all of them--that gets away from the central issue: Yes or no, up or down, will you provide $2,000 to Americans who are going to need it through what Tony Fauci is saying will be the worst part of this pandemic? Yes or no, up or down, where do they stand on this issue? Here is what we do know. Republicans seem more focused on funding the Defense Department than they do on funding the defenseless in our country, and Americans are becoming more defenseless as each day goes by. The headlines are screaming that this panic, which is absolutely understandable and based upon fact, is sweeping our country. There is protection that the Federal Government should be providing to these families. We hear it. They are hungry. They could be without their homes. The addiction crisis is rising. They need help in their families. So from my perspective, we have a moment in time, and Donald Trump happens to agree with us--even though a broken clock is right twice a day. And we do agree with him. He is right. We do need this help, which we should be providing to these families. As we watch more and more of our American loved ones fall sick and die, families are facing a new and unprecedented hardship. They are having to make impossible decisions as to whether to put food on the table or keep the heat on through the cold winter months, and the U.S. Government has an obligation to help working people who, through no fault of their own, are seeing all of the things that they care about, all of the success that they have worked for, and all the financial security they have earned be washed away. And yet the Republicans want to put another ``Operation Snail Speed'' in place. The damage to these families is anticipatable. We can see what is unfolding. Dr. Fauci is telling us that we are at the worst part of the pandemic and it is going to continue. So let us act in anticipation. Louis Pasteur used to say that ``chance favors the prepared mind.'' That is what Dr. Tony Fauci is telling us. Let us prepare. Let us help families prepare for what is about to arrive. Just in Massachusetts alone, 21,000 new people applied for unemployment insurance in the week before Christmas. Food banks across Massachusetts and across the country are seeing double-digit increases in demand with families who never faced food insecurity before. People are literally starving, cold, and without homes. Meanwhile, the majority leader and Republican leadership would rather head home for the New Year and ignore the financial and health crises that are taking a toll on our families. For millions of Americans, this will be a New Year holiday where they won't know if they can put food on the table that night. Republicans are claiming that giving $2,000 in direct cash payments to working Americans would be too expensive, that it would inflate our national deficit, that our budgets are already bloated. I have to ask, though, where was this outrage when Republicans blew up our national deficit to give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires and corporations? These are the crocodile tears from the right, as Americans are shedding real tears thinking about where their next meal will come from, the eviction notice on the front door, or losing healthcare in the midst of this crisis. Americans are actually tired of being told that $600 is ``sufficient'' as an amount of money as relief, as billionaires receive their tax breaks and grow their wealth by the trillions of dollars during this crisis. The rich get richer, and the rest are there left suffering. They have had enough of being told that there just isn't the money for support for the well-being of their communities when they can see tax breaks going to those companies that are actually laying off workers. Americans are tired of being let down by their government time and time again, as Donald Trump and his Republican allies have abandoned them during this response to the pandemic. Americans need support. They need to be able to trust their government, and they need $2,000 now. So that is the issue: Yes or no, up or down, on providing $2,000 to Americans to help them make it through the worst part of this crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 31, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9051, a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of that bill without intervening action or debate; further, that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that immediately following the vote on H.R. 9051, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the veto message on H.R. 6395; that the Senate immediately vote on passage of the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARKEY | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7974 | null | 2,046 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully and watched three occasions on the floor this afternoon where Senators Schumer, Sanders, and Markey have tried to create an opportunity where the Senate would actually come together and vote, where the Senate might make a decision based on the merits of this issue, rather than to keep talking around the issue. What is at stake is a substantial sum of money for families who are in the midst of the struggle of their lives--$2,000--characterized a few moments ago by my friend from Texas as ``Speaker Pelosi's idea.'' Well, I might remind him that it is also Donald Trump's idea and still is. The President has told us this morning that we should move on this as quickly as possible, and although I don't often come to the floor to agree with the President, he is right. In this instance he is clearly right. What are we doing now? We are calling Senators back to Washington from the far reaches across the United States. This morning, I received some email and text messages from some of my colleagues hopping on airplanes at 6 a.m. on the west coast to face a vote. What is this vote all about? Well, first, it is to override the veto of the President when it comes to the Defense authorization bill. This was certainly something that was occasioned by one Senator, the junior Senator from Kentucky, who forced us into a position where that vote needed to be taken here. It could have been handled much more efficiently and to the benefit of all Members if it was scheduled for the weekend when we were assuming a new session of Congress. But he insisted, and we are returning and, frankly, putting in peril again, in the midst of a pandemic, Members of the Senate who are traveling from all the far reaches of this country to be part of this action in Washington But it isn't just the junior Senator from Kentucky who is having us sit here in Washington and wait for things that could be taken care of with dispatch. It is the senior Senator from Kentucky as well. He has decided that we will not get a vote on the House measure to increase the payments to $2,000. Make no mistake, there is only one way to bring this relief to the families of America. It is to pass the bill already enacted by the House of Representatives--a bill which received 44 Republican votes in addition to a substantial number of Democrats, with only 2 voting no. Forty-four Republican votes joined with the Democrats to call for this measure which many have been decrying on the floor here as a class struggle or whatever their argument might be. There is no other measure, including Senator McConnell's alternative, which has any ghost of a chance to help the families in this country with this $2,000 benefit. The only thing that will do it--the only one thing that will do it--is this bill that has already passed the House of Representatives. The House has recessed. When they are going to return is uncertain. They certainly don't have the time to work through the regular order of business to consider any new legislation even if we could send it in time, which I believe is very doubtful. So it is up to Senator McConnell to decide right here and now, are we going to come together as a Senate this afternoon at 5 o'clock, when we are supposed to be back and voting, and get this matter done? Bring it to the Senate for a vote. Let's have this vote up or down, and let the Democrats and Republicans express their will on behalf of the families in this country. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Massachusetts and his characterization of what families face across this country and, certainly, in my home State of Illinois. I just wonder if any of the Republican Senators who are downplaying this economic crisis facing these families have really looked into the issue. This morning, in the Senator's home State of Texas, they showed an early morning television show and the cars that were lining up for food banks--long lines of people waiting for food banks. They interviewed some of them in Texas who told heartbreaking stories of how they once were volunteers at this same food bank and are now dependent for a helping hand if they were going to be able to feed their families. These are people who are not lazy at all. Misfortune has come their way, and the question is, Will we help? This is our opportunity--today. It is a measure that has passed the House of Representatives, not some theory of some legislation that might be considered tomorrow--today. Let's have this vote today, this evening. When the Senators have returned, let's determine whether or not this House-passed measure of $2,000 is going to be enacted into law, since the President is clearly anxious to sign it. That to me is the reasonable thing to do. In fact, it might even sound like the U.S. Senate is taking a vote on a timely issue after a debate. We do it so seldom around here that I think we have lost our muscle memory when it comes to this activity in the Senate. It is time to return to it. I thank the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Massachusetts, and, of course, the Democratic leader for bringing this issue before us this afternoon. But it shouldn't end with our great speeches. It ought to end with an important vote for the people of this country. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7976 | null | 2,047 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me as something akin to Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day is only the day I was born. It is something I feel like we are living through here as we debate the same points overand over and over again, forgetting what it is we have already done--the good things we have done together on a bipartisan basis. We have already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic, and it is appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. But now this is--we are seeing politics creep back in in an attempt to send money in an untargeted and wasteful sort of way to people who have suffered no financial loss. These relief packages that we passed together have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our hospitals and healthcare workers who are on the frontlines. I voted for it, and I think we were right to do so. We have thrown small businesses and their employees a lifeline through the Paycheck Protection Program, and we were right to do so. We have invested in research, development, and manufacturing of therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered--thank goodness--throughout the country and, indeed, around the world. And we have sent unprecedented assistance to workers, families, and individuals whose livelihoods have been upended by this crisis. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, Congress has stepped up and met this unprecedented challenge to deliver relief bill after relief bill for the American people. If you had told me a year ago I would have voted this year alone for roughly $4 trillion worth of spending in this pandemic, I would not have believed you. But I do believe this is a domestic equivalent to World War II, where we have to do everything humanly possible to try to help our fellow man, woman, and child during this pandemic. The latest round of relief came, of course, just this week, when President Trump signed the $900 billion rescue package into law. While I am glad Congress was able to send more relief out the door at the end of the year, I am disappointed that it took so long to do so. It is amazing the sense of urgency our Democratic colleagues have today, since at least three times--maybe four times--they blocked our attempts to pass half-trillion-dollar relief bills during the course of the summer. In July, our colleagues introduced the HEALS Act, which would have provided just under a trillion dollars in relief, covering the same types of policies included in the most recent relief bill--direct payments, unemployment benefits, funding for schools, vaccines, and a host of other priorities. Our Democratic colleagues not only complained about the bill, but they called it weak, little, pathetic, and unserious. They refused to engage in the sorts of negotiations that are customary around here when you actually want to solve a problem or consider anything short of the House's multitrillion-dollar bill, which they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate because of things like tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which had nothing to do with COVID. So our Democratic colleagues dragged their feet--July, August, September, October, November. Months went by, and the cases soared, and the economic squeeze tightened, and our Democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. That was until a few weeks ago, when they finally changed their tune right after the election. I am sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly, and that is what happened here after the election. Democrats, Republicans, and the administration agreed to a $900 billion package, which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few months ago. In recent days, the President has expressed an interest in doing more, and I have no doubt that we will do more in this area, but Speaker Pelosi's bill goes far beyond what the President is talking about. For one, it would dramatically widen the pool of recipients, enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. This is unacceptable and wasteful. When Congress provided the first round of direct payments through the CARES Act, we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit Americans. Individuals who made up to $75,000 received the full $1,200, and the amount gradually declined as income increased and completely phased out at $99,000. We kept the same formula for the $600 payments provided for under the omnibus and further targeted the relief. Once again, those who made up to $75,000 will receive the full amount, and the amount phases out completely at $87,000. Under the CARES Act, a family of four earning up to $150,000 received $3,400, and in the most recent rescue bill, the same family would receive an additional $2,400. This was the most effective and targeted way to ensure that assistance goes to those who actually need it while avoiding sending taxpayer dollars--borrowed, I might add--to those who don't. The House-passed legislation would provide $2,000 payments, but it doesn't have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. Let me give you an example. If this bill were to become law, a person making $100,000 a year would receive a $750 check from the Federal Government, whether or not they lost income during the pandemic. This isn't someone who used to make that much but was laid off or had a reduction in their income. Someone who is currently earning a six-figure salary would receive an additional $750 from American taxpayers. For families, the income barrier goes higher. As I mentioned a moment ago, if you have a family of five with an annual household income of $350,000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the House-passed bill. Now, that is not being smart with taxpayer dollars, and that is not targeted at the people who actually need it. That is a giveaway to people who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic and clearly not targeted at those who need the most help. I mentioned a moment ago that the median income for households in Texas is $60,000 a year, so this family of five is earning nearly six times as much and would still receive a check from taxpayers. That defies all common sense. Even the Washington Post editorial board dubbed this policy as wasteful because of the huge amounts destined for what they call ``perfectly comfortable families.'' Even though Congress has already provided roughly $4 trillion in relief to the American people, our Democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. Like I said, for them, every day is Groundhog Day. They ignore everything we have done in the past and act like this is the only thing we have or could do. It is just not true This debate isn't about whether or not Congress should help families who are struggling. We have. And there is no question we will continue to do so where needed. That is why we provided $1,200 in direct payments to the hardest hit Americans through the CARES Act and an additional $600 through the most recent relief bill. That is why these bills also bolstered State unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and the self-employed. That is why Congress passed legislation to provide food assistance to families, keep more hard-working Americans on payroll, and ensure our economy is on track for a strong recovery. Again, we did this thanks to the leadership of President Trump and by working together in a bipartisan way. Countless Texans have told me about the impact of this relief on their businesses and their families, and we can't lose sight of the progress that has already been made. But future relief must be targeted. We need to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as this proposal would, to those who don't need it. Throughout the year, I have been an advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills because I think it is hard to spend $3 trillion and know exactly how that bill is going to work. And, indeed, we found out through the CARES Act that the mainstream lending facility, which we funded at roughly half a trillion dollars, wasn't as useful as we would have hoped. Conversely, the Paycheck Protection Program was more successful than our wildest dreams. So I think by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we can be better stewards of taxpayer dollars by spending the money more efficiently and in a more targeted way. This isn't like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what is needed for individual programs. There was no precedent for this pandemic, no handbook, and no clear way to gauge how long this crisis would go on or what would be needed to sustain our response. After the CARES Act passed, we knew it made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what worked well, what didn't, and where more help was needed. As I said, there were certain programs like the Paycheck Protection Program that almost immediately dried up. If I am not mistaken, in 2 weeks, roughly $350 billion was obligated under the Paycheck Protection Program--a strong indication that we really hit the sweet spot when it came to helping those small businesses. That is why we added more funding in April, another $320 billion, and we extended the program in July and reinvested in the Paycheck Protection Program again in the omnibus. As I said, there were other places where the money went unspent. But, fortunately, in the most recent bill we were able to repurpose hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent funds, again, to target it to where the need was greatest and where it could help the most. There is no question that tens of millions of workers and their families have been hurt by this virus. We all know that. And I think we have all acted together, by and large, responsibly, in trying to respond to that. No one will be left out if we have a means and method of targeting this to those people--whether it is direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, incentives to their employers to maintain them on payroll. And now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is that in the coming months we will get back to, if not the new normal, whatever the next normal will be. But we are just a few days from kicking off the new Congress, and I have no reason to believe that our coronavirus relief work is finished here today. As a matter of fact, Vice President Biden said that he expects to send us an additional request for help once he assumes office. Once the legislation we have passed has a chance to benefit the American people, we will see if more relief is needed, and then, if it is needed, we should absolutely do more. I still believe in the wisdom of the incremental approach, and I believe our Democratic friends will join us in responding to the true needs of this crisis without monthlong delays or irresponsible spending. Countless Texans have told me about the importance of the relief we have provided through direct payments, unemployment benefits, food assistance, and other forms of support by the laws we passed throughout this year. I was proud to support each of those policies, which have eased the financial strains on millions of Texans and other Americans. I will continue to work with our colleagues to provide assistance as our war on COVID-19 rages on. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7977 | null | 2,048 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me as something akin to Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day is only the day I was born. It is something I feel like we are living through here as we debate the same points overand over and over again, forgetting what it is we have already done--the good things we have done together on a bipartisan basis. We have already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic, and it is appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. But now this is--we are seeing politics creep back in in an attempt to send money in an untargeted and wasteful sort of way to people who have suffered no financial loss. These relief packages that we passed together have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our hospitals and healthcare workers who are on the frontlines. I voted for it, and I think we were right to do so. We have thrown small businesses and their employees a lifeline through the Paycheck Protection Program, and we were right to do so. We have invested in research, development, and manufacturing of therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered--thank goodness--throughout the country and, indeed, around the world. And we have sent unprecedented assistance to workers, families, and individuals whose livelihoods have been upended by this crisis. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, Congress has stepped up and met this unprecedented challenge to deliver relief bill after relief bill for the American people. If you had told me a year ago I would have voted this year alone for roughly $4 trillion worth of spending in this pandemic, I would not have believed you. But I do believe this is a domestic equivalent to World War II, where we have to do everything humanly possible to try to help our fellow man, woman, and child during this pandemic. The latest round of relief came, of course, just this week, when President Trump signed the $900 billion rescue package into law. While I am glad Congress was able to send more relief out the door at the end of the year, I am disappointed that it took so long to do so. It is amazing the sense of urgency our Democratic colleagues have today, since at least three times--maybe four times--they blocked our attempts to pass half-trillion-dollar relief bills during the course of the summer. In July, our colleagues introduced the HEALS Act, which would have provided just under a trillion dollars in relief, covering the same types of policies included in the most recent relief bill--direct payments, unemployment benefits, funding for schools, vaccines, and a host of other priorities. Our Democratic colleagues not only complained about the bill, but they called it weak, little, pathetic, and unserious. They refused to engage in the sorts of negotiations that are customary around here when you actually want to solve a problem or consider anything short of the House's multitrillion-dollar bill, which they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate because of things like tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which had nothing to do with COVID. So our Democratic colleagues dragged their feet--July, August, September, October, November. Months went by, and the cases soared, and the economic squeeze tightened, and our Democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. That was until a few weeks ago, when they finally changed their tune right after the election. I am sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly, and that is what happened here after the election. Democrats, Republicans, and the administration agreed to a $900 billion package, which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few months ago. In recent days, the President has expressed an interest in doing more, and I have no doubt that we will do more in this area, but Speaker Pelosi's bill goes far beyond what the President is talking about. For one, it would dramatically widen the pool of recipients, enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. This is unacceptable and wasteful. When Congress provided the first round of direct payments through the CARES Act, we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit Americans. Individuals who made up to $75,000 received the full $1,200, and the amount gradually declined as income increased and completely phased out at $99,000. We kept the same formula for the $600 payments provided for under the omnibus and further targeted the relief. Once again, those who made up to $75,000 will receive the full amount, and the amount phases out completely at $87,000. Under the CARES Act, a family of four earning up to $150,000 received $3,400, and in the most recent rescue bill, the same family would receive an additional $2,400. This was the most effective and targeted way to ensure that assistance goes to those who actually need it while avoiding sending taxpayer dollars--borrowed, I might add--to those who don't. The House-passed legislation would provide $2,000 payments, but it doesn't have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. Let me give you an example. If this bill were to become law, a person making $100,000 a year would receive a $750 check from the Federal Government, whether or not they lost income during the pandemic. This isn't someone who used to make that much but was laid off or had a reduction in their income. Someone who is currently earning a six-figure salary would receive an additional $750 from American taxpayers. For families, the income barrier goes higher. As I mentioned a moment ago, if you have a family of five with an annual household income of $350,000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the House-passed bill. Now, that is not being smart with taxpayer dollars, and that is not targeted at the people who actually need it. That is a giveaway to people who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic and clearly not targeted at those who need the most help. I mentioned a moment ago that the median income for households in Texas is $60,000 a year, so this family of five is earning nearly six times as much and would still receive a check from taxpayers. That defies all common sense. Even the Washington Post editorial board dubbed this policy as wasteful because of the huge amounts destined for what they call ``perfectly comfortable families.'' Even though Congress has already provided roughly $4 trillion in relief to the American people, our Democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. Like I said, for them, every day is Groundhog Day. They ignore everything we have done in the past and act like this is the only thing we have or could do. It is just not true This debate isn't about whether or not Congress should help families who are struggling. We have. And there is no question we will continue to do so where needed. That is why we provided $1,200 in direct payments to the hardest hit Americans through the CARES Act and an additional $600 through the most recent relief bill. That is why these bills also bolstered State unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and the self-employed. That is why Congress passed legislation to provide food assistance to families, keep more hard-working Americans on payroll, and ensure our economy is on track for a strong recovery. Again, we did this thanks to the leadership of President Trump and by working together in a bipartisan way. Countless Texans have told me about the impact of this relief on their businesses and their families, and we can't lose sight of the progress that has already been made. But future relief must be targeted. We need to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as this proposal would, to those who don't need it. Throughout the year, I have been an advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills because I think it is hard to spend $3 trillion and know exactly how that bill is going to work. And, indeed, we found out through the CARES Act that the mainstream lending facility, which we funded at roughly half a trillion dollars, wasn't as useful as we would have hoped. Conversely, the Paycheck Protection Program was more successful than our wildest dreams. So I think by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we can be better stewards of taxpayer dollars by spending the money more efficiently and in a more targeted way. This isn't like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what is needed for individual programs. There was no precedent for this pandemic, no handbook, and no clear way to gauge how long this crisis would go on or what would be needed to sustain our response. After the CARES Act passed, we knew it made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what worked well, what didn't, and where more help was needed. As I said, there were certain programs like the Paycheck Protection Program that almost immediately dried up. If I am not mistaken, in 2 weeks, roughly $350 billion was obligated under the Paycheck Protection Program--a strong indication that we really hit the sweet spot when it came to helping those small businesses. That is why we added more funding in April, another $320 billion, and we extended the program in July and reinvested in the Paycheck Protection Program again in the omnibus. As I said, there were other places where the money went unspent. But, fortunately, in the most recent bill we were able to repurpose hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent funds, again, to target it to where the need was greatest and where it could help the most. There is no question that tens of millions of workers and their families have been hurt by this virus. We all know that. And I think we have all acted together, by and large, responsibly, in trying to respond to that. No one will be left out if we have a means and method of targeting this to those people--whether it is direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, incentives to their employers to maintain them on payroll. And now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is that in the coming months we will get back to, if not the new normal, whatever the next normal will be. But we are just a few days from kicking off the new Congress, and I have no reason to believe that our coronavirus relief work is finished here today. As a matter of fact, Vice President Biden said that he expects to send us an additional request for help once he assumes office. Once the legislation we have passed has a chance to benefit the American people, we will see if more relief is needed, and then, if it is needed, we should absolutely do more. I still believe in the wisdom of the incremental approach, and I believe our Democratic friends will join us in responding to the true needs of this crisis without monthlong delays or irresponsible spending. Countless Texans have told me about the importance of the relief we have provided through direct payments, unemployment benefits, food assistance, and other forms of support by the laws we passed throughout this year. I was proud to support each of those policies, which have eased the financial strains on millions of Texans and other Americans. I will continue to work with our colleagues to provide assistance as our war on COVID-19 rages on. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7977 | null | 2,049 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me as something akin to Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day is only the day I was born. It is something I feel like we are living through here as we debate the same points overand over and over again, forgetting what it is we have already done--the good things we have done together on a bipartisan basis. We have already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic, and it is appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. But now this is--we are seeing politics creep back in in an attempt to send money in an untargeted and wasteful sort of way to people who have suffered no financial loss. These relief packages that we passed together have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our hospitals and healthcare workers who are on the frontlines. I voted for it, and I think we were right to do so. We have thrown small businesses and their employees a lifeline through the Paycheck Protection Program, and we were right to do so. We have invested in research, development, and manufacturing of therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered--thank goodness--throughout the country and, indeed, around the world. And we have sent unprecedented assistance to workers, families, and individuals whose livelihoods have been upended by this crisis. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, Congress has stepped up and met this unprecedented challenge to deliver relief bill after relief bill for the American people. If you had told me a year ago I would have voted this year alone for roughly $4 trillion worth of spending in this pandemic, I would not have believed you. But I do believe this is a domestic equivalent to World War II, where we have to do everything humanly possible to try to help our fellow man, woman, and child during this pandemic. The latest round of relief came, of course, just this week, when President Trump signed the $900 billion rescue package into law. While I am glad Congress was able to send more relief out the door at the end of the year, I am disappointed that it took so long to do so. It is amazing the sense of urgency our Democratic colleagues have today, since at least three times--maybe four times--they blocked our attempts to pass half-trillion-dollar relief bills during the course of the summer. In July, our colleagues introduced the HEALS Act, which would have provided just under a trillion dollars in relief, covering the same types of policies included in the most recent relief bill--direct payments, unemployment benefits, funding for schools, vaccines, and a host of other priorities. Our Democratic colleagues not only complained about the bill, but they called it weak, little, pathetic, and unserious. They refused to engage in the sorts of negotiations that are customary around here when you actually want to solve a problem or consider anything short of the House's multitrillion-dollar bill, which they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate because of things like tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which had nothing to do with COVID. So our Democratic colleagues dragged their feet--July, August, September, October, November. Months went by, and the cases soared, and the economic squeeze tightened, and our Democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. That was until a few weeks ago, when they finally changed their tune right after the election. I am sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly, and that is what happened here after the election. Democrats, Republicans, and the administration agreed to a $900 billion package, which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few months ago. In recent days, the President has expressed an interest in doing more, and I have no doubt that we will do more in this area, but Speaker Pelosi's bill goes far beyond what the President is talking about. For one, it would dramatically widen the pool of recipients, enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. This is unacceptable and wasteful. When Congress provided the first round of direct payments through the CARES Act, we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit Americans. Individuals who made up to $75,000 received the full $1,200, and the amount gradually declined as income increased and completely phased out at $99,000. We kept the same formula for the $600 payments provided for under the omnibus and further targeted the relief. Once again, those who made up to $75,000 will receive the full amount, and the amount phases out completely at $87,000. Under the CARES Act, a family of four earning up to $150,000 received $3,400, and in the most recent rescue bill, the same family would receive an additional $2,400. This was the most effective and targeted way to ensure that assistance goes to those who actually need it while avoiding sending taxpayer dollars--borrowed, I might add--to those who don't. The House-passed legislation would provide $2,000 payments, but it doesn't have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. Let me give you an example. If this bill were to become law, a person making $100,000 a year would receive a $750 check from the Federal Government, whether or not they lost income during the pandemic. This isn't someone who used to make that much but was laid off or had a reduction in their income. Someone who is currently earning a six-figure salary would receive an additional $750 from American taxpayers. For families, the income barrier goes higher. As I mentioned a moment ago, if you have a family of five with an annual household income of $350,000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the House-passed bill. Now, that is not being smart with taxpayer dollars, and that is not targeted at the people who actually need it. That is a giveaway to people who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic and clearly not targeted at those who need the most help. I mentioned a moment ago that the median income for households in Texas is $60,000 a year, so this family of five is earning nearly six times as much and would still receive a check from taxpayers. That defies all common sense. Even the Washington Post editorial board dubbed this policy as wasteful because of the huge amounts destined for what they call ``perfectly comfortable families.'' Even though Congress has already provided roughly $4 trillion in relief to the American people, our Democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. Like I said, for them, every day is Groundhog Day. They ignore everything we have done in the past and act like this is the only thing we have or could do. It is just not true This debate isn't about whether or not Congress should help families who are struggling. We have. And there is no question we will continue to do so where needed. That is why we provided $1,200 in direct payments to the hardest hit Americans through the CARES Act and an additional $600 through the most recent relief bill. That is why these bills also bolstered State unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and the self-employed. That is why Congress passed legislation to provide food assistance to families, keep more hard-working Americans on payroll, and ensure our economy is on track for a strong recovery. Again, we did this thanks to the leadership of President Trump and by working together in a bipartisan way. Countless Texans have told me about the impact of this relief on their businesses and their families, and we can't lose sight of the progress that has already been made. But future relief must be targeted. We need to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as this proposal would, to those who don't need it. Throughout the year, I have been an advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills because I think it is hard to spend $3 trillion and know exactly how that bill is going to work. And, indeed, we found out through the CARES Act that the mainstream lending facility, which we funded at roughly half a trillion dollars, wasn't as useful as we would have hoped. Conversely, the Paycheck Protection Program was more successful than our wildest dreams. So I think by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we can be better stewards of taxpayer dollars by spending the money more efficiently and in a more targeted way. This isn't like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what is needed for individual programs. There was no precedent for this pandemic, no handbook, and no clear way to gauge how long this crisis would go on or what would be needed to sustain our response. After the CARES Act passed, we knew it made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what worked well, what didn't, and where more help was needed. As I said, there were certain programs like the Paycheck Protection Program that almost immediately dried up. If I am not mistaken, in 2 weeks, roughly $350 billion was obligated under the Paycheck Protection Program--a strong indication that we really hit the sweet spot when it came to helping those small businesses. That is why we added more funding in April, another $320 billion, and we extended the program in July and reinvested in the Paycheck Protection Program again in the omnibus. As I said, there were other places where the money went unspent. But, fortunately, in the most recent bill we were able to repurpose hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent funds, again, to target it to where the need was greatest and where it could help the most. There is no question that tens of millions of workers and their families have been hurt by this virus. We all know that. And I think we have all acted together, by and large, responsibly, in trying to respond to that. No one will be left out if we have a means and method of targeting this to those people--whether it is direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, incentives to their employers to maintain them on payroll. And now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is that in the coming months we will get back to, if not the new normal, whatever the next normal will be. But we are just a few days from kicking off the new Congress, and I have no reason to believe that our coronavirus relief work is finished here today. As a matter of fact, Vice President Biden said that he expects to send us an additional request for help once he assumes office. Once the legislation we have passed has a chance to benefit the American people, we will see if more relief is needed, and then, if it is needed, we should absolutely do more. I still believe in the wisdom of the incremental approach, and I believe our Democratic friends will join us in responding to the true needs of this crisis without monthlong delays or irresponsible spending. Countless Texans have told me about the importance of the relief we have provided through direct payments, unemployment benefits, food assistance, and other forms of support by the laws we passed throughout this year. I was proud to support each of those policies, which have eased the financial strains on millions of Texans and other Americans. I will continue to work with our colleagues to provide assistance as our war on COVID-19 rages on. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7977 | null | 2,050 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me as something akin to Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day is only the day I was born. It is something I feel like we are living through here as we debate the same points overand over and over again, forgetting what it is we have already done--the good things we have done together on a bipartisan basis. We have already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic, and it is appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. But now this is--we are seeing politics creep back in in an attempt to send money in an untargeted and wasteful sort of way to people who have suffered no financial loss. These relief packages that we passed together have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our hospitals and healthcare workers who are on the frontlines. I voted for it, and I think we were right to do so. We have thrown small businesses and their employees a lifeline through the Paycheck Protection Program, and we were right to do so. We have invested in research, development, and manufacturing of therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered--thank goodness--throughout the country and, indeed, around the world. And we have sent unprecedented assistance to workers, families, and individuals whose livelihoods have been upended by this crisis. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, Congress has stepped up and met this unprecedented challenge to deliver relief bill after relief bill for the American people. If you had told me a year ago I would have voted this year alone for roughly $4 trillion worth of spending in this pandemic, I would not have believed you. But I do believe this is a domestic equivalent to World War II, where we have to do everything humanly possible to try to help our fellow man, woman, and child during this pandemic. The latest round of relief came, of course, just this week, when President Trump signed the $900 billion rescue package into law. While I am glad Congress was able to send more relief out the door at the end of the year, I am disappointed that it took so long to do so. It is amazing the sense of urgency our Democratic colleagues have today, since at least three times--maybe four times--they blocked our attempts to pass half-trillion-dollar relief bills during the course of the summer. In July, our colleagues introduced the HEALS Act, which would have provided just under a trillion dollars in relief, covering the same types of policies included in the most recent relief bill--direct payments, unemployment benefits, funding for schools, vaccines, and a host of other priorities. Our Democratic colleagues not only complained about the bill, but they called it weak, little, pathetic, and unserious. They refused to engage in the sorts of negotiations that are customary around here when you actually want to solve a problem or consider anything short of the House's multitrillion-dollar bill, which they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate because of things like tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which had nothing to do with COVID. So our Democratic colleagues dragged their feet--July, August, September, October, November. Months went by, and the cases soared, and the economic squeeze tightened, and our Democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. That was until a few weeks ago, when they finally changed their tune right after the election. I am sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly, and that is what happened here after the election. Democrats, Republicans, and the administration agreed to a $900 billion package, which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few months ago. In recent days, the President has expressed an interest in doing more, and I have no doubt that we will do more in this area, but Speaker Pelosi's bill goes far beyond what the President is talking about. For one, it would dramatically widen the pool of recipients, enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. This is unacceptable and wasteful. When Congress provided the first round of direct payments through the CARES Act, we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit Americans. Individuals who made up to $75,000 received the full $1,200, and the amount gradually declined as income increased and completely phased out at $99,000. We kept the same formula for the $600 payments provided for under the omnibus and further targeted the relief. Once again, those who made up to $75,000 will receive the full amount, and the amount phases out completely at $87,000. Under the CARES Act, a family of four earning up to $150,000 received $3,400, and in the most recent rescue bill, the same family would receive an additional $2,400. This was the most effective and targeted way to ensure that assistance goes to those who actually need it while avoiding sending taxpayer dollars--borrowed, I might add--to those who don't. The House-passed legislation would provide $2,000 payments, but it doesn't have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. Let me give you an example. If this bill were to become law, a person making $100,000 a year would receive a $750 check from the Federal Government, whether or not they lost income during the pandemic. This isn't someone who used to make that much but was laid off or had a reduction in their income. Someone who is currently earning a six-figure salary would receive an additional $750 from American taxpayers. For families, the income barrier goes higher. As I mentioned a moment ago, if you have a family of five with an annual household income of $350,000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the House-passed bill. Now, that is not being smart with taxpayer dollars, and that is not targeted at the people who actually need it. That is a giveaway to people who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic and clearly not targeted at those who need the most help. I mentioned a moment ago that the median income for households in Texas is $60,000 a year, so this family of five is earning nearly six times as much and would still receive a check from taxpayers. That defies all common sense. Even the Washington Post editorial board dubbed this policy as wasteful because of the huge amounts destined for what they call ``perfectly comfortable families.'' Even though Congress has already provided roughly $4 trillion in relief to the American people, our Democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. Like I said, for them, every day is Groundhog Day. They ignore everything we have done in the past and act like this is the only thing we have or could do. It is just not true This debate isn't about whether or not Congress should help families who are struggling. We have. And there is no question we will continue to do so where needed. That is why we provided $1,200 in direct payments to the hardest hit Americans through the CARES Act and an additional $600 through the most recent relief bill. That is why these bills also bolstered State unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and the self-employed. That is why Congress passed legislation to provide food assistance to families, keep more hard-working Americans on payroll, and ensure our economy is on track for a strong recovery. Again, we did this thanks to the leadership of President Trump and by working together in a bipartisan way. Countless Texans have told me about the impact of this relief on their businesses and their families, and we can't lose sight of the progress that has already been made. But future relief must be targeted. We need to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as this proposal would, to those who don't need it. Throughout the year, I have been an advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills because I think it is hard to spend $3 trillion and know exactly how that bill is going to work. And, indeed, we found out through the CARES Act that the mainstream lending facility, which we funded at roughly half a trillion dollars, wasn't as useful as we would have hoped. Conversely, the Paycheck Protection Program was more successful than our wildest dreams. So I think by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we can be better stewards of taxpayer dollars by spending the money more efficiently and in a more targeted way. This isn't like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what is needed for individual programs. There was no precedent for this pandemic, no handbook, and no clear way to gauge how long this crisis would go on or what would be needed to sustain our response. After the CARES Act passed, we knew it made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what worked well, what didn't, and where more help was needed. As I said, there were certain programs like the Paycheck Protection Program that almost immediately dried up. If I am not mistaken, in 2 weeks, roughly $350 billion was obligated under the Paycheck Protection Program--a strong indication that we really hit the sweet spot when it came to helping those small businesses. That is why we added more funding in April, another $320 billion, and we extended the program in July and reinvested in the Paycheck Protection Program again in the omnibus. As I said, there were other places where the money went unspent. But, fortunately, in the most recent bill we were able to repurpose hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent funds, again, to target it to where the need was greatest and where it could help the most. There is no question that tens of millions of workers and their families have been hurt by this virus. We all know that. And I think we have all acted together, by and large, responsibly, in trying to respond to that. No one will be left out if we have a means and method of targeting this to those people--whether it is direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, incentives to their employers to maintain them on payroll. And now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is that in the coming months we will get back to, if not the new normal, whatever the next normal will be. But we are just a few days from kicking off the new Congress, and I have no reason to believe that our coronavirus relief work is finished here today. As a matter of fact, Vice President Biden said that he expects to send us an additional request for help once he assumes office. Once the legislation we have passed has a chance to benefit the American people, we will see if more relief is needed, and then, if it is needed, we should absolutely do more. I still believe in the wisdom of the incremental approach, and I believe our Democratic friends will join us in responding to the true needs of this crisis without monthlong delays or irresponsible spending. Countless Texans have told me about the importance of the relief we have provided through direct payments, unemployment benefits, food assistance, and other forms of support by the laws we passed throughout this year. I was proud to support each of those policies, which have eased the financial strains on millions of Texans and other Americans. I will continue to work with our colleagues to provide assistance as our war on COVID-19 rages on. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7977 | null | 2,051 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk about what strikes me as something akin to Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day is only the day I was born. It is something I feel like we are living through here as we debate the same points overand over and over again, forgetting what it is we have already done--the good things we have done together on a bipartisan basis. We have already appropriated roughly $4 trillion in response to this pandemic, and it is appropriate that we have done so because this was a true public health crisis. But now this is--we are seeing politics creep back in in an attempt to send money in an untargeted and wasteful sort of way to people who have suffered no financial loss. These relief packages that we passed together have provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our hospitals and healthcare workers who are on the frontlines. I voted for it, and I think we were right to do so. We have thrown small businesses and their employees a lifeline through the Paycheck Protection Program, and we were right to do so. We have invested in research, development, and manufacturing of therapeutics and vaccines that are currently being administered--thank goodness--throughout the country and, indeed, around the world. And we have sent unprecedented assistance to workers, families, and individuals whose livelihoods have been upended by this crisis. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, Congress has stepped up and met this unprecedented challenge to deliver relief bill after relief bill for the American people. If you had told me a year ago I would have voted this year alone for roughly $4 trillion worth of spending in this pandemic, I would not have believed you. But I do believe this is a domestic equivalent to World War II, where we have to do everything humanly possible to try to help our fellow man, woman, and child during this pandemic. The latest round of relief came, of course, just this week, when President Trump signed the $900 billion rescue package into law. While I am glad Congress was able to send more relief out the door at the end of the year, I am disappointed that it took so long to do so. It is amazing the sense of urgency our Democratic colleagues have today, since at least three times--maybe four times--they blocked our attempts to pass half-trillion-dollar relief bills during the course of the summer. In July, our colleagues introduced the HEALS Act, which would have provided just under a trillion dollars in relief, covering the same types of policies included in the most recent relief bill--direct payments, unemployment benefits, funding for schools, vaccines, and a host of other priorities. Our Democratic colleagues not only complained about the bill, but they called it weak, little, pathetic, and unserious. They refused to engage in the sorts of negotiations that are customary around here when you actually want to solve a problem or consider anything short of the House's multitrillion-dollar bill, which they knew had no chance of passing in the Senate because of things like tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which had nothing to do with COVID. So our Democratic colleagues dragged their feet--July, August, September, October, November. Months went by, and the cases soared, and the economic squeeze tightened, and our Democratic colleagues refused to accept any sort of compromise. That was until a few weeks ago, when they finally changed their tune right after the election. I am sure it comes as no surprise that once the holdout agrees to negotiate, things can move pretty quickly, and that is what happened here after the election. Democrats, Republicans, and the administration agreed to a $900 billion package, which looks very similar to the one they dubbed pathetic just a few months ago. In recent days, the President has expressed an interest in doing more, and I have no doubt that we will do more in this area, but Speaker Pelosi's bill goes far beyond what the President is talking about. For one, it would dramatically widen the pool of recipients, enabling wealthy households to qualify for relief checks. This is unacceptable and wasteful. When Congress provided the first round of direct payments through the CARES Act, we did so in a way that sent relief to the hardest hit Americans. Individuals who made up to $75,000 received the full $1,200, and the amount gradually declined as income increased and completely phased out at $99,000. We kept the same formula for the $600 payments provided for under the omnibus and further targeted the relief. Once again, those who made up to $75,000 will receive the full amount, and the amount phases out completely at $87,000. Under the CARES Act, a family of four earning up to $150,000 received $3,400, and in the most recent rescue bill, the same family would receive an additional $2,400. This was the most effective and targeted way to ensure that assistance goes to those who actually need it while avoiding sending taxpayer dollars--borrowed, I might add--to those who don't. The House-passed legislation would provide $2,000 payments, but it doesn't have a similar structure to keep these payments targeted. Let me give you an example. If this bill were to become law, a person making $100,000 a year would receive a $750 check from the Federal Government, whether or not they lost income during the pandemic. This isn't someone who used to make that much but was laid off or had a reduction in their income. Someone who is currently earning a six-figure salary would receive an additional $750 from American taxpayers. For families, the income barrier goes higher. As I mentioned a moment ago, if you have a family of five with an annual household income of $350,000 a year, that family would receive a stimulus check under the House-passed bill. Now, that is not being smart with taxpayer dollars, and that is not targeted at the people who actually need it. That is a giveaway to people who have not suffered any financial losses during this pandemic and clearly not targeted at those who need the most help. I mentioned a moment ago that the median income for households in Texas is $60,000 a year, so this family of five is earning nearly six times as much and would still receive a check from taxpayers. That defies all common sense. Even the Washington Post editorial board dubbed this policy as wasteful because of the huge amounts destined for what they call ``perfectly comfortable families.'' Even though Congress has already provided roughly $4 trillion in relief to the American people, our Democratic colleagues are acting as though this is the first and only way to help our country. Like I said, for them, every day is Groundhog Day. They ignore everything we have done in the past and act like this is the only thing we have or could do. It is just not true This debate isn't about whether or not Congress should help families who are struggling. We have. And there is no question we will continue to do so where needed. That is why we provided $1,200 in direct payments to the hardest hit Americans through the CARES Act and an additional $600 through the most recent relief bill. That is why these bills also bolstered State unemployment benefits and expanded them to include independent contractors and the self-employed. That is why Congress passed legislation to provide food assistance to families, keep more hard-working Americans on payroll, and ensure our economy is on track for a strong recovery. Again, we did this thanks to the leadership of President Trump and by working together in a bipartisan way. Countless Texans have told me about the impact of this relief on their businesses and their families, and we can't lose sight of the progress that has already been made. But future relief must be targeted. We need to support those who need it and avoid sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as this proposal would, to those who don't need it. Throughout the year, I have been an advocate for an incremental approach to these relief bills because I think it is hard to spend $3 trillion and know exactly how that bill is going to work. And, indeed, we found out through the CARES Act that the mainstream lending facility, which we funded at roughly half a trillion dollars, wasn't as useful as we would have hoped. Conversely, the Paycheck Protection Program was more successful than our wildest dreams. So I think by seeing what works and what doesn't work, we can be better stewards of taxpayer dollars by spending the money more efficiently and in a more targeted way. This isn't like highway bills or farm bills or defense spending bills where we have an idea about what is needed for individual programs. There was no precedent for this pandemic, no handbook, and no clear way to gauge how long this crisis would go on or what would be needed to sustain our response. After the CARES Act passed, we knew it made the most sense to hit the pause button and see what worked well, what didn't, and where more help was needed. As I said, there were certain programs like the Paycheck Protection Program that almost immediately dried up. If I am not mistaken, in 2 weeks, roughly $350 billion was obligated under the Paycheck Protection Program--a strong indication that we really hit the sweet spot when it came to helping those small businesses. That is why we added more funding in April, another $320 billion, and we extended the program in July and reinvested in the Paycheck Protection Program again in the omnibus. As I said, there were other places where the money went unspent. But, fortunately, in the most recent bill we were able to repurpose hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent funds, again, to target it to where the need was greatest and where it could help the most. There is no question that tens of millions of workers and their families have been hurt by this virus. We all know that. And I think we have all acted together, by and large, responsibly, in trying to respond to that. No one will be left out if we have a means and method of targeting this to those people--whether it is direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, incentives to their employers to maintain them on payroll. And now that we have the beginning of the distribution of the vaccine, my hope is that in the coming months we will get back to, if not the new normal, whatever the next normal will be. But we are just a few days from kicking off the new Congress, and I have no reason to believe that our coronavirus relief work is finished here today. As a matter of fact, Vice President Biden said that he expects to send us an additional request for help once he assumes office. Once the legislation we have passed has a chance to benefit the American people, we will see if more relief is needed, and then, if it is needed, we should absolutely do more. I still believe in the wisdom of the incremental approach, and I believe our Democratic friends will join us in responding to the true needs of this crisis without monthlong delays or irresponsible spending. Countless Texans have told me about the importance of the relief we have provided through direct payments, unemployment benefits, food assistance, and other forms of support by the laws we passed throughout this year. I was proud to support each of those policies, which have eased the financial strains on millions of Texans and other Americans. I will continue to work with our colleagues to provide assistance as our war on COVID-19 rages on. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7977 | null | 2,052 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of revisionist history this afternoon. Look back in March, when Congress did the right thing and the Senate voted unanimously. Because of our efforts, 13 million people were kept out of poverty--we know that--because we provided relatively generous unemployment insurance. We did the direct payments. We helped with small business loans. But then this Senate thought its work was done for the year. We begged Senator McConnell month after month after month to come back and help. As I said, 13 million people were kept out of poverty because of the work this Congress did in March of this year, but now, since--many of those benefits, especially the unemployment benefit and the direct payments, were not continued, of course. Those benefits expired in August, and we have seen 8 million people drop into poverty in this country since. Yet Senator McConnell refuses and refuses and refuses I hear this revisionist history that Democrats just want to help people who are already affluent and give them more money. Well, remember back in March, the only amendment that we considered, the only amendment that Senator McConnell allowed on the floor of the Senate to the CARES Act, the only amendment was to take away the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. The only place Republicans fought was the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. That more than any single thing we did is why people were kept out of poverty. Now the best we could do was $300-a-week unemployment insurance--the best we could do. In spite of Senator Cornyn's and others' comments, Senator McConnell waited, waited, waited, and waited. Finally, we were able to do that. The President of the United States threatened to veto it, causing millions of Americans to fall off their unemployment insurance. We know all that. It is just important to remember all that. But there is one simple question before the Senate this week: Are we going to put more money into people's pockets? The American people made it clear on election day that they want a government that is on their side. This is our chance to deliver for them, to show people whom we serve that we can make a real difference in their lives, which we did back in March. It is pretty simple. The best way to help Ohio workers and families is to put more money in their pockets, not in the bank accounts of the largest corporations and biggest banks, hoping it will trickle down. We know it never does. The CEOs just pay themselves instead. We know that just recently there was more good news for American CEOs who are able again to do stock buybacks, more dividend distributions. A lot of corporations have made a lot of money--more power to them--during this pandemic, but those are the corporations that continue to get the big tax breaks. We need, instead, to directly invest in people who make this country work. It helps people pay the bills and stay in their homes and get through this downturn. It injects money into local economies that really need it. The more money people have, the more they spend in small businesses that are hurting. We know this works. It did in the spring. We came together. We crossed the aisle, passed the CARES Act, expanded unemployment, and provided direct stimulus checks, keeping 13 million people out of poverty. The bill we passed last week was a good step in that direction, but we should make it stronger. Back in March, my original plan that I tried to negotiate as I sat with Secretary Mnuchin and a handful of other Senators was $2,000 per person, adults and children. We called for it to be sent automatically throughout the year, every quarter, as long as we remained in a public health emergency. It is clear now what we could have done and should have done. No one could predict how long this crisis would last. Today, we still aren't sure when everybody will be vaccinated and when the economy will return to full strength. We don't want to sit idly by. We don't want to wonder how bad it could get. We are the strongest, richest country on Earth. We have the resources to do something about it; we just need leadership willing to use every tool we have. If they refuse to support this $2,000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct payments, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will again make it perfectly clear to the American people whose side they are on. Every time there is a fork in the road and Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans have to make a decision--either go with corporate interests or go with working families--every single time, they choose corporate interests. They had no problem pouring money into corporate coffers with their tax cut and blowing up the deficit. Just down the hall here in Senator McConnell's office, I remember lobbyists lining up, looking for those tax cuts back 3 years ago, and they got those tax cuts. They didn't say anything about government deficits back then--$1.5 trillion added to the deficit. They didn't mind that because that was money going into their contributors' pockets, into big corporate coffersfor the wealthiest people in this country. They were all too happy to let the government shovel loans to the biggest banks and companies. But in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetime, faced with the chance to give money directly to ordinary Americans, my colleagues claim we can't afford it. That is just simply a lie. We are the richest country on Earth. I remember Bill Spriggs--an economist at Howard University--told the Banking and Housing Committee in September: We didn't win World War II by worrying about whether or not we could afford it. We were in a global crisis. We marshalled all our vast resources and talents to rise to meet it. We grew the economy from the middle class out. We paid down the debt with rising wages. If we have learned anything from the crisis, it should be that we can do the same again. Americans are tired of being told we can't. It is the only answer that Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans ever have for most people's problems: We can't help you. We can't solve your problem. You are on your own. Let's aim higher. Let's deliver for the people we serve. Let's put $2,000 into their pockets--money that will make such a difference for so many families. It will help a mother worried about how she will pay back rent. It will keep a laid off restaurant worker from turning to a payday lender. It will allow a father to buy a new computer so his kids are better able to learn online. These are millions of real people--people we swore an oath to serve who would breathe a little easier this new year if we pass this. So let's be clear about the decision today and this week before the Senate. Are we going to give the people we serve $2,000, or are you going to stand in the way? It is that simple. Let's come together. Let's pass this. Let's make a real difference in people's lives. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7979 | null | 2,053 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of revisionist history this afternoon. Look back in March, when Congress did the right thing and the Senate voted unanimously. Because of our efforts, 13 million people were kept out of poverty--we know that--because we provided relatively generous unemployment insurance. We did the direct payments. We helped with small business loans. But then this Senate thought its work was done for the year. We begged Senator McConnell month after month after month to come back and help. As I said, 13 million people were kept out of poverty because of the work this Congress did in March of this year, but now, since--many of those benefits, especially the unemployment benefit and the direct payments, were not continued, of course. Those benefits expired in August, and we have seen 8 million people drop into poverty in this country since. Yet Senator McConnell refuses and refuses and refuses I hear this revisionist history that Democrats just want to help people who are already affluent and give them more money. Well, remember back in March, the only amendment that we considered, the only amendment that Senator McConnell allowed on the floor of the Senate to the CARES Act, the only amendment was to take away the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. The only place Republicans fought was the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. That more than any single thing we did is why people were kept out of poverty. Now the best we could do was $300-a-week unemployment insurance--the best we could do. In spite of Senator Cornyn's and others' comments, Senator McConnell waited, waited, waited, and waited. Finally, we were able to do that. The President of the United States threatened to veto it, causing millions of Americans to fall off their unemployment insurance. We know all that. It is just important to remember all that. But there is one simple question before the Senate this week: Are we going to put more money into people's pockets? The American people made it clear on election day that they want a government that is on their side. This is our chance to deliver for them, to show people whom we serve that we can make a real difference in their lives, which we did back in March. It is pretty simple. The best way to help Ohio workers and families is to put more money in their pockets, not in the bank accounts of the largest corporations and biggest banks, hoping it will trickle down. We know it never does. The CEOs just pay themselves instead. We know that just recently there was more good news for American CEOs who are able again to do stock buybacks, more dividend distributions. A lot of corporations have made a lot of money--more power to them--during this pandemic, but those are the corporations that continue to get the big tax breaks. We need, instead, to directly invest in people who make this country work. It helps people pay the bills and stay in their homes and get through this downturn. It injects money into local economies that really need it. The more money people have, the more they spend in small businesses that are hurting. We know this works. It did in the spring. We came together. We crossed the aisle, passed the CARES Act, expanded unemployment, and provided direct stimulus checks, keeping 13 million people out of poverty. The bill we passed last week was a good step in that direction, but we should make it stronger. Back in March, my original plan that I tried to negotiate as I sat with Secretary Mnuchin and a handful of other Senators was $2,000 per person, adults and children. We called for it to be sent automatically throughout the year, every quarter, as long as we remained in a public health emergency. It is clear now what we could have done and should have done. No one could predict how long this crisis would last. Today, we still aren't sure when everybody will be vaccinated and when the economy will return to full strength. We don't want to sit idly by. We don't want to wonder how bad it could get. We are the strongest, richest country on Earth. We have the resources to do something about it; we just need leadership willing to use every tool we have. If they refuse to support this $2,000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct payments, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will again make it perfectly clear to the American people whose side they are on. Every time there is a fork in the road and Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans have to make a decision--either go with corporate interests or go with working families--every single time, they choose corporate interests. They had no problem pouring money into corporate coffers with their tax cut and blowing up the deficit. Just down the hall here in Senator McConnell's office, I remember lobbyists lining up, looking for those tax cuts back 3 years ago, and they got those tax cuts. They didn't say anything about government deficits back then--$1.5 trillion added to the deficit. They didn't mind that because that was money going into their contributors' pockets, into big corporate coffersfor the wealthiest people in this country. They were all too happy to let the government shovel loans to the biggest banks and companies. But in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetime, faced with the chance to give money directly to ordinary Americans, my colleagues claim we can't afford it. That is just simply a lie. We are the richest country on Earth. I remember Bill Spriggs--an economist at Howard University--told the Banking and Housing Committee in September: We didn't win World War II by worrying about whether or not we could afford it. We were in a global crisis. We marshalled all our vast resources and talents to rise to meet it. We grew the economy from the middle class out. We paid down the debt with rising wages. If we have learned anything from the crisis, it should be that we can do the same again. Americans are tired of being told we can't. It is the only answer that Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans ever have for most people's problems: We can't help you. We can't solve your problem. You are on your own. Let's aim higher. Let's deliver for the people we serve. Let's put $2,000 into their pockets--money that will make such a difference for so many families. It will help a mother worried about how she will pay back rent. It will keep a laid off restaurant worker from turning to a payday lender. It will allow a father to buy a new computer so his kids are better able to learn online. These are millions of real people--people we swore an oath to serve who would breathe a little easier this new year if we pass this. So let's be clear about the decision today and this week before the Senate. Are we going to give the people we serve $2,000, or are you going to stand in the way? It is that simple. Let's come together. Let's pass this. Let's make a real difference in people's lives. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7979 | null | 2,054 |
formal | every single time | null | white supremacist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of revisionist history this afternoon. Look back in March, when Congress did the right thing and the Senate voted unanimously. Because of our efforts, 13 million people were kept out of poverty--we know that--because we provided relatively generous unemployment insurance. We did the direct payments. We helped with small business loans. But then this Senate thought its work was done for the year. We begged Senator McConnell month after month after month to come back and help. As I said, 13 million people were kept out of poverty because of the work this Congress did in March of this year, but now, since--many of those benefits, especially the unemployment benefit and the direct payments, were not continued, of course. Those benefits expired in August, and we have seen 8 million people drop into poverty in this country since. Yet Senator McConnell refuses and refuses and refuses I hear this revisionist history that Democrats just want to help people who are already affluent and give them more money. Well, remember back in March, the only amendment that we considered, the only amendment that Senator McConnell allowed on the floor of the Senate to the CARES Act, the only amendment was to take away the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. The only place Republicans fought was the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. That more than any single thing we did is why people were kept out of poverty. Now the best we could do was $300-a-week unemployment insurance--the best we could do. In spite of Senator Cornyn's and others' comments, Senator McConnell waited, waited, waited, and waited. Finally, we were able to do that. The President of the United States threatened to veto it, causing millions of Americans to fall off their unemployment insurance. We know all that. It is just important to remember all that. But there is one simple question before the Senate this week: Are we going to put more money into people's pockets? The American people made it clear on election day that they want a government that is on their side. This is our chance to deliver for them, to show people whom we serve that we can make a real difference in their lives, which we did back in March. It is pretty simple. The best way to help Ohio workers and families is to put more money in their pockets, not in the bank accounts of the largest corporations and biggest banks, hoping it will trickle down. We know it never does. The CEOs just pay themselves instead. We know that just recently there was more good news for American CEOs who are able again to do stock buybacks, more dividend distributions. A lot of corporations have made a lot of money--more power to them--during this pandemic, but those are the corporations that continue to get the big tax breaks. We need, instead, to directly invest in people who make this country work. It helps people pay the bills and stay in their homes and get through this downturn. It injects money into local economies that really need it. The more money people have, the more they spend in small businesses that are hurting. We know this works. It did in the spring. We came together. We crossed the aisle, passed the CARES Act, expanded unemployment, and provided direct stimulus checks, keeping 13 million people out of poverty. The bill we passed last week was a good step in that direction, but we should make it stronger. Back in March, my original plan that I tried to negotiate as I sat with Secretary Mnuchin and a handful of other Senators was $2,000 per person, adults and children. We called for it to be sent automatically throughout the year, every quarter, as long as we remained in a public health emergency. It is clear now what we could have done and should have done. No one could predict how long this crisis would last. Today, we still aren't sure when everybody will be vaccinated and when the economy will return to full strength. We don't want to sit idly by. We don't want to wonder how bad it could get. We are the strongest, richest country on Earth. We have the resources to do something about it; we just need leadership willing to use every tool we have. If they refuse to support this $2,000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct payments, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will again make it perfectly clear to the American people whose side they are on. Every time there is a fork in the road and Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans have to make a decision--either go with corporate interests or go with working families--every single time, they choose corporate interests. They had no problem pouring money into corporate coffers with their tax cut and blowing up the deficit. Just down the hall here in Senator McConnell's office, I remember lobbyists lining up, looking for those tax cuts back 3 years ago, and they got those tax cuts. They didn't say anything about government deficits back then--$1.5 trillion added to the deficit. They didn't mind that because that was money going into their contributors' pockets, into big corporate coffersfor the wealthiest people in this country. They were all too happy to let the government shovel loans to the biggest banks and companies. But in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetime, faced with the chance to give money directly to ordinary Americans, my colleagues claim we can't afford it. That is just simply a lie. We are the richest country on Earth. I remember Bill Spriggs--an economist at Howard University--told the Banking and Housing Committee in September: We didn't win World War II by worrying about whether or not we could afford it. We were in a global crisis. We marshalled all our vast resources and talents to rise to meet it. We grew the economy from the middle class out. We paid down the debt with rising wages. If we have learned anything from the crisis, it should be that we can do the same again. Americans are tired of being told we can't. It is the only answer that Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans ever have for most people's problems: We can't help you. We can't solve your problem. You are on your own. Let's aim higher. Let's deliver for the people we serve. Let's put $2,000 into their pockets--money that will make such a difference for so many families. It will help a mother worried about how she will pay back rent. It will keep a laid off restaurant worker from turning to a payday lender. It will allow a father to buy a new computer so his kids are better able to learn online. These are millions of real people--people we swore an oath to serve who would breathe a little easier this new year if we pass this. So let's be clear about the decision today and this week before the Senate. Are we going to give the people we serve $2,000, or are you going to stand in the way? It is that simple. Let's come together. Let's pass this. Let's make a real difference in people's lives. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7979 | null | 2,055 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of revisionist history this afternoon. Look back in March, when Congress did the right thing and the Senate voted unanimously. Because of our efforts, 13 million people were kept out of poverty--we know that--because we provided relatively generous unemployment insurance. We did the direct payments. We helped with small business loans. But then this Senate thought its work was done for the year. We begged Senator McConnell month after month after month to come back and help. As I said, 13 million people were kept out of poverty because of the work this Congress did in March of this year, but now, since--many of those benefits, especially the unemployment benefit and the direct payments, were not continued, of course. Those benefits expired in August, and we have seen 8 million people drop into poverty in this country since. Yet Senator McConnell refuses and refuses and refuses I hear this revisionist history that Democrats just want to help people who are already affluent and give them more money. Well, remember back in March, the only amendment that we considered, the only amendment that Senator McConnell allowed on the floor of the Senate to the CARES Act, the only amendment was to take away the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. The only place Republicans fought was the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. That more than any single thing we did is why people were kept out of poverty. Now the best we could do was $300-a-week unemployment insurance--the best we could do. In spite of Senator Cornyn's and others' comments, Senator McConnell waited, waited, waited, and waited. Finally, we were able to do that. The President of the United States threatened to veto it, causing millions of Americans to fall off their unemployment insurance. We know all that. It is just important to remember all that. But there is one simple question before the Senate this week: Are we going to put more money into people's pockets? The American people made it clear on election day that they want a government that is on their side. This is our chance to deliver for them, to show people whom we serve that we can make a real difference in their lives, which we did back in March. It is pretty simple. The best way to help Ohio workers and families is to put more money in their pockets, not in the bank accounts of the largest corporations and biggest banks, hoping it will trickle down. We know it never does. The CEOs just pay themselves instead. We know that just recently there was more good news for American CEOs who are able again to do stock buybacks, more dividend distributions. A lot of corporations have made a lot of money--more power to them--during this pandemic, but those are the corporations that continue to get the big tax breaks. We need, instead, to directly invest in people who make this country work. It helps people pay the bills and stay in their homes and get through this downturn. It injects money into local economies that really need it. The more money people have, the more they spend in small businesses that are hurting. We know this works. It did in the spring. We came together. We crossed the aisle, passed the CARES Act, expanded unemployment, and provided direct stimulus checks, keeping 13 million people out of poverty. The bill we passed last week was a good step in that direction, but we should make it stronger. Back in March, my original plan that I tried to negotiate as I sat with Secretary Mnuchin and a handful of other Senators was $2,000 per person, adults and children. We called for it to be sent automatically throughout the year, every quarter, as long as we remained in a public health emergency. It is clear now what we could have done and should have done. No one could predict how long this crisis would last. Today, we still aren't sure when everybody will be vaccinated and when the economy will return to full strength. We don't want to sit idly by. We don't want to wonder how bad it could get. We are the strongest, richest country on Earth. We have the resources to do something about it; we just need leadership willing to use every tool we have. If they refuse to support this $2,000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct payments, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will again make it perfectly clear to the American people whose side they are on. Every time there is a fork in the road and Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans have to make a decision--either go with corporate interests or go with working families--every single time, they choose corporate interests. They had no problem pouring money into corporate coffers with their tax cut and blowing up the deficit. Just down the hall here in Senator McConnell's office, I remember lobbyists lining up, looking for those tax cuts back 3 years ago, and they got those tax cuts. They didn't say anything about government deficits back then--$1.5 trillion added to the deficit. They didn't mind that because that was money going into their contributors' pockets, into big corporate coffersfor the wealthiest people in this country. They were all too happy to let the government shovel loans to the biggest banks and companies. But in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetime, faced with the chance to give money directly to ordinary Americans, my colleagues claim we can't afford it. That is just simply a lie. We are the richest country on Earth. I remember Bill Spriggs--an economist at Howard University--told the Banking and Housing Committee in September: We didn't win World War II by worrying about whether or not we could afford it. We were in a global crisis. We marshalled all our vast resources and talents to rise to meet it. We grew the economy from the middle class out. We paid down the debt with rising wages. If we have learned anything from the crisis, it should be that we can do the same again. Americans are tired of being told we can't. It is the only answer that Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans ever have for most people's problems: We can't help you. We can't solve your problem. You are on your own. Let's aim higher. Let's deliver for the people we serve. Let's put $2,000 into their pockets--money that will make such a difference for so many families. It will help a mother worried about how she will pay back rent. It will keep a laid off restaurant worker from turning to a payday lender. It will allow a father to buy a new computer so his kids are better able to learn online. These are millions of real people--people we swore an oath to serve who would breathe a little easier this new year if we pass this. So let's be clear about the decision today and this week before the Senate. Are we going to give the people we serve $2,000, or are you going to stand in the way? It is that simple. Let's come together. Let's pass this. Let's make a real difference in people's lives. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7979 | null | 2,056 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of revisionist history this afternoon. Look back in March, when Congress did the right thing and the Senate voted unanimously. Because of our efforts, 13 million people were kept out of poverty--we know that--because we provided relatively generous unemployment insurance. We did the direct payments. We helped with small business loans. But then this Senate thought its work was done for the year. We begged Senator McConnell month after month after month to come back and help. As I said, 13 million people were kept out of poverty because of the work this Congress did in March of this year, but now, since--many of those benefits, especially the unemployment benefit and the direct payments, were not continued, of course. Those benefits expired in August, and we have seen 8 million people drop into poverty in this country since. Yet Senator McConnell refuses and refuses and refuses I hear this revisionist history that Democrats just want to help people who are already affluent and give them more money. Well, remember back in March, the only amendment that we considered, the only amendment that Senator McConnell allowed on the floor of the Senate to the CARES Act, the only amendment was to take away the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. The only place Republicans fought was the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. That more than any single thing we did is why people were kept out of poverty. Now the best we could do was $300-a-week unemployment insurance--the best we could do. In spite of Senator Cornyn's and others' comments, Senator McConnell waited, waited, waited, and waited. Finally, we were able to do that. The President of the United States threatened to veto it, causing millions of Americans to fall off their unemployment insurance. We know all that. It is just important to remember all that. But there is one simple question before the Senate this week: Are we going to put more money into people's pockets? The American people made it clear on election day that they want a government that is on their side. This is our chance to deliver for them, to show people whom we serve that we can make a real difference in their lives, which we did back in March. It is pretty simple. The best way to help Ohio workers and families is to put more money in their pockets, not in the bank accounts of the largest corporations and biggest banks, hoping it will trickle down. We know it never does. The CEOs just pay themselves instead. We know that just recently there was more good news for American CEOs who are able again to do stock buybacks, more dividend distributions. A lot of corporations have made a lot of money--more power to them--during this pandemic, but those are the corporations that continue to get the big tax breaks. We need, instead, to directly invest in people who make this country work. It helps people pay the bills and stay in their homes and get through this downturn. It injects money into local economies that really need it. The more money people have, the more they spend in small businesses that are hurting. We know this works. It did in the spring. We came together. We crossed the aisle, passed the CARES Act, expanded unemployment, and provided direct stimulus checks, keeping 13 million people out of poverty. The bill we passed last week was a good step in that direction, but we should make it stronger. Back in March, my original plan that I tried to negotiate as I sat with Secretary Mnuchin and a handful of other Senators was $2,000 per person, adults and children. We called for it to be sent automatically throughout the year, every quarter, as long as we remained in a public health emergency. It is clear now what we could have done and should have done. No one could predict how long this crisis would last. Today, we still aren't sure when everybody will be vaccinated and when the economy will return to full strength. We don't want to sit idly by. We don't want to wonder how bad it could get. We are the strongest, richest country on Earth. We have the resources to do something about it; we just need leadership willing to use every tool we have. If they refuse to support this $2,000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct payments, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will again make it perfectly clear to the American people whose side they are on. Every time there is a fork in the road and Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans have to make a decision--either go with corporate interests or go with working families--every single time, they choose corporate interests. They had no problem pouring money into corporate coffers with their tax cut and blowing up the deficit. Just down the hall here in Senator McConnell's office, I remember lobbyists lining up, looking for those tax cuts back 3 years ago, and they got those tax cuts. They didn't say anything about government deficits back then--$1.5 trillion added to the deficit. They didn't mind that because that was money going into their contributors' pockets, into big corporate coffersfor the wealthiest people in this country. They were all too happy to let the government shovel loans to the biggest banks and companies. But in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetime, faced with the chance to give money directly to ordinary Americans, my colleagues claim we can't afford it. That is just simply a lie. We are the richest country on Earth. I remember Bill Spriggs--an economist at Howard University--told the Banking and Housing Committee in September: We didn't win World War II by worrying about whether or not we could afford it. We were in a global crisis. We marshalled all our vast resources and talents to rise to meet it. We grew the economy from the middle class out. We paid down the debt with rising wages. If we have learned anything from the crisis, it should be that we can do the same again. Americans are tired of being told we can't. It is the only answer that Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans ever have for most people's problems: We can't help you. We can't solve your problem. You are on your own. Let's aim higher. Let's deliver for the people we serve. Let's put $2,000 into their pockets--money that will make such a difference for so many families. It will help a mother worried about how she will pay back rent. It will keep a laid off restaurant worker from turning to a payday lender. It will allow a father to buy a new computer so his kids are better able to learn online. These are millions of real people--people we swore an oath to serve who would breathe a little easier this new year if we pass this. So let's be clear about the decision today and this week before the Senate. Are we going to give the people we serve $2,000, or are you going to stand in the way? It is that simple. Let's come together. Let's pass this. Let's make a real difference in people's lives. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7979 | null | 2,057 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of revisionist history this afternoon. Look back in March, when Congress did the right thing and the Senate voted unanimously. Because of our efforts, 13 million people were kept out of poverty--we know that--because we provided relatively generous unemployment insurance. We did the direct payments. We helped with small business loans. But then this Senate thought its work was done for the year. We begged Senator McConnell month after month after month to come back and help. As I said, 13 million people were kept out of poverty because of the work this Congress did in March of this year, but now, since--many of those benefits, especially the unemployment benefit and the direct payments, were not continued, of course. Those benefits expired in August, and we have seen 8 million people drop into poverty in this country since. Yet Senator McConnell refuses and refuses and refuses I hear this revisionist history that Democrats just want to help people who are already affluent and give them more money. Well, remember back in March, the only amendment that we considered, the only amendment that Senator McConnell allowed on the floor of the Senate to the CARES Act, the only amendment was to take away the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. The only place Republicans fought was the $600-a-week unemployment insurance. That more than any single thing we did is why people were kept out of poverty. Now the best we could do was $300-a-week unemployment insurance--the best we could do. In spite of Senator Cornyn's and others' comments, Senator McConnell waited, waited, waited, and waited. Finally, we were able to do that. The President of the United States threatened to veto it, causing millions of Americans to fall off their unemployment insurance. We know all that. It is just important to remember all that. But there is one simple question before the Senate this week: Are we going to put more money into people's pockets? The American people made it clear on election day that they want a government that is on their side. This is our chance to deliver for them, to show people whom we serve that we can make a real difference in their lives, which we did back in March. It is pretty simple. The best way to help Ohio workers and families is to put more money in their pockets, not in the bank accounts of the largest corporations and biggest banks, hoping it will trickle down. We know it never does. The CEOs just pay themselves instead. We know that just recently there was more good news for American CEOs who are able again to do stock buybacks, more dividend distributions. A lot of corporations have made a lot of money--more power to them--during this pandemic, but those are the corporations that continue to get the big tax breaks. We need, instead, to directly invest in people who make this country work. It helps people pay the bills and stay in their homes and get through this downturn. It injects money into local economies that really need it. The more money people have, the more they spend in small businesses that are hurting. We know this works. It did in the spring. We came together. We crossed the aisle, passed the CARES Act, expanded unemployment, and provided direct stimulus checks, keeping 13 million people out of poverty. The bill we passed last week was a good step in that direction, but we should make it stronger. Back in March, my original plan that I tried to negotiate as I sat with Secretary Mnuchin and a handful of other Senators was $2,000 per person, adults and children. We called for it to be sent automatically throughout the year, every quarter, as long as we remained in a public health emergency. It is clear now what we could have done and should have done. No one could predict how long this crisis would last. Today, we still aren't sure when everybody will be vaccinated and when the economy will return to full strength. We don't want to sit idly by. We don't want to wonder how bad it could get. We are the strongest, richest country on Earth. We have the resources to do something about it; we just need leadership willing to use every tool we have. If they refuse to support this $2,000 per person, if they refuse to support these direct payments, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will again make it perfectly clear to the American people whose side they are on. Every time there is a fork in the road and Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans have to make a decision--either go with corporate interests or go with working families--every single time, they choose corporate interests. They had no problem pouring money into corporate coffers with their tax cut and blowing up the deficit. Just down the hall here in Senator McConnell's office, I remember lobbyists lining up, looking for those tax cuts back 3 years ago, and they got those tax cuts. They didn't say anything about government deficits back then--$1.5 trillion added to the deficit. They didn't mind that because that was money going into their contributors' pockets, into big corporate coffersfor the wealthiest people in this country. They were all too happy to let the government shovel loans to the biggest banks and companies. But in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetime, faced with the chance to give money directly to ordinary Americans, my colleagues claim we can't afford it. That is just simply a lie. We are the richest country on Earth. I remember Bill Spriggs--an economist at Howard University--told the Banking and Housing Committee in September: We didn't win World War II by worrying about whether or not we could afford it. We were in a global crisis. We marshalled all our vast resources and talents to rise to meet it. We grew the economy from the middle class out. We paid down the debt with rising wages. If we have learned anything from the crisis, it should be that we can do the same again. Americans are tired of being told we can't. It is the only answer that Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans ever have for most people's problems: We can't help you. We can't solve your problem. You are on your own. Let's aim higher. Let's deliver for the people we serve. Let's put $2,000 into their pockets--money that will make such a difference for so many families. It will help a mother worried about how she will pay back rent. It will keep a laid off restaurant worker from turning to a payday lender. It will allow a father to buy a new computer so his kids are better able to learn online. These are millions of real people--people we swore an oath to serve who would breathe a little easier this new year if we pass this. So let's be clear about the decision today and this week before the Senate. Are we going to give the people we serve $2,000, or are you going to stand in the way? It is that simple. Let's come together. Let's pass this. Let's make a real difference in people's lives. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7979 | null | 2,058 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to rise and discuss the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. First, I would like to salute the chairman. He has done an extraordinary job. We have both served on the committee for many years, and this is probably the most challenging year we have had due to many different factors: the pandemic, the virtual hearings, all those things. And this has been particularly challenging, and the chairman, at every point, stood up to the challenge and led us. I want to thank him for that. It was a pleasure working with him. We all recognize that this legislation passed both Chambers, the House and the Senate, by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. And it is very important legislation. That is why it earned this bipartisan support. It enhances our national security. It strengthens our military readiness and defense capabilities. It protects our forces and their families and supports the defense industrial base. Despite all that it does for our troops and their families, President Trump waited until the 10th day after he received it and vetoed it the last day he could exercise his veto. That was December 23, which made quite a Christmas for our military personnel and for all of my colleagues who are here today to start the process of responding to that veto. The House already took the first step. They returned on Monday. Once again, by an overwhelming vote, over 300 Members of the House overrode the President's veto. Now we face the same task in the Senate. It is my hope we can quickly and resoundingly overridethe President's veto and provide our troops with what they need. I will echo what the chairman said. You can go through all the thousands of pages, literally, but what is the most significant aspect of this legislation is keeping faith with the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. So if anyone has any thoughts about their vote, just think about those men and women who are all across the world putting their lives at risk while their families share that risk and that sense of danger and sacrifice. That is what I think has motivated the chairman and myself and all of our colleagues on the committee and throughout this Senate to work hard to get this bill passed. There are several reasons being advanced by the President for suggesting that this bill should be vetoed--the veto should be upheld. One reason is that he claims the bill fails to include critical national security measures. Yet this legislation provides critical tools and authorities for the Department of Homeland Security to perform network hunting for threats and vulnerabilities on Federal networks. These tools and authorities would help to counter breaches like the SolarWinds hack, which is possibly the largest intrusion into our system we have ever seen by a foreign nation state adversary. We do not yet know the extent and the degree of intrusion that we have suffered. In fact, we weren't aware of this intrusion for many, many months. One of the disconcerting aspects is that it was discovered by a private company that is one of the most, if not the most sophisticated cyber intrusion expert in the world. Yet they were penetrated. So we have a serious, serious situation on our hands. This legislation would start giving basic tools, which would allow our cyber security experts to go into other Departments to look at their procedures, their policies, all of their cyber activities, and recommend corrections. In fact, this bill has done more, I think, for cyber based on the work of the Cyber Solarium Commission, which was chaired by Senator Angus King and Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and also aided significantly by my colleague Congressman Jim Langevin of Rhode Island. They put the work together. We took a lot of the Solarium's work and put it into this bill. So there is absolutely no credence to the issue that we have not dealt with national security and cyber intrusions in particular. Then again, the President, in his veto message, wrote that one of the reasons is the failure to essentially repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But this issue has nothing to do with the military--nothing at all. It was designed years ago to provide legal protections to social media companies so that they could expand and grow. Frankly, I think it has worked beyond our wildest imaginations. Everyone recognizes it should be reformed, but reform requires thoughtful, responsible analysis of the legislation. The effects of the legislation should offer both sides the opportunity to explain positions. None of that was done, and none of that can be done before we conclude this legislative session. It is more, I think, a personal feud of the President, the section 230 repeal, than it is one of careful, deliberate, thoughtful legislation by the Senate. There is another reason the President has used, and that is we have established a commission to make recommendations for the renaming and removal of symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate Confederates who served voluntarily with the Confederacy. There is a clear exemption, by the way, for gravestones that we would absolutely respect. But these individuals--many of them who were on Active service with our Army or Navy at the time--decided to consciously fight against the United States of America. It is that simple. Yet we have bases that are named after them. The President said this is part of the American heritage of victory and freedom, but, again, these are named after men who took up arms against the United States. In some cases--in most cases, they weren't particularly exemplary generals, with some exceptions. And it was done in a way that I think was not to honor the service of these individuals but to advance other forces. I think it is time that this history be changed, that this chapter be closed, and the senior Defense Department officials have indicated they are open to these changes. There is bipartisan support for cooperation on this issue. It passed the committee. It passed the floor. It passed the House. Now, it is in this legislation. When the President vetoed the bill, he also said it is a ``gift to China and Russia.'' I would strenuously disagree. This is one of the strongest bills yet on countering the threat China poses to the United States and our partners, including allies such as India, Taiwan, and other countries and regions. Among the provisions of this legislation is the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. That is a new authority for the Department of Defense, modeled after the European Deterrence Initiative and authorizes an additional $150 million in funding. This was the work--I was proud to collaborate, but the lead was the chairman, Chairman Inhofe, and I was his copilot on that one. This is the first time we really stepped back and said: We have a new threat--significant threat--rising in the Pacific. We have to take a holistic review of strategy, capabilities, equipment, and we have to make this a top priority. So rather than doing nothing about China, as the President alleges, I think we have made one of the most significant steps forward in consciously recognizing the relationship that has developed between China and the United States. With regard to Russia and Europe, the conference report enhances our ability to deter Russian aggression, maintains strong support for Ukraine, and reaffirms our commitment to the transatlantic partnership, including by calling for a strong U.S. force posture in Germany. Now, President Trump also vetoed this legislation because he wants the ability to remove our military from ``far away and very unappreciative lands.'' Those are his words. Particularly, I have concern about the situation in Afghanistan. First--and I have been to Afghanistan somewhere close to 20 times--since the beginning. In fact, I was on the first congressional delegation to go in January after the invasion. I have tried to pay attention to what is going on there. And one point is that the Afghan people have struggled and fought with us side by side. They have suffered greatly. I don't think it is right to say they are unappreciative. I think every day they have been suffering casualties. They have been fighting with our soldiers--in fact, in some cases, saving and helping our soldiers survive on the field. Second, essentially, the provision allows the President to make the decision. In fact, he can waive all the provisions we built in by simply declaring that it is in the national security interests of the United States and communicating that to the respective leaders in the House and the Senate. That is something that is almost pro forma. So the notion that this seriously hampers his ability is misplaced. What it does, though, is signal that we have to be very careful in recognizing all of the equities that are involved in Afghanistan. The fact is that there are numerous terrorist groups there, and we have to maintain a counterterrorism presence; the fact that, as I indicated before, the Government of Afghanistan, the Afghan people, in many cases, have suffered more than we have considering the onslaught of the Taliban and other forces. So, again, I don't think that reason measures up to the demands. The National Defense Authorization Act has passed for 59 years. We need to ensure it will pass for 60 years by overriding the President's veto. The House, as I said, has already done that--322 to 87. I encourage my colleagues to show similar support for our military personnel and their families and override this veto. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. REED | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7980-2 | null | 2,059 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to rise and discuss the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. First, I would like to salute the chairman. He has done an extraordinary job. We have both served on the committee for many years, and this is probably the most challenging year we have had due to many different factors: the pandemic, the virtual hearings, all those things. And this has been particularly challenging, and the chairman, at every point, stood up to the challenge and led us. I want to thank him for that. It was a pleasure working with him. We all recognize that this legislation passed both Chambers, the House and the Senate, by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. And it is very important legislation. That is why it earned this bipartisan support. It enhances our national security. It strengthens our military readiness and defense capabilities. It protects our forces and their families and supports the defense industrial base. Despite all that it does for our troops and their families, President Trump waited until the 10th day after he received it and vetoed it the last day he could exercise his veto. That was December 23, which made quite a Christmas for our military personnel and for all of my colleagues who are here today to start the process of responding to that veto. The House already took the first step. They returned on Monday. Once again, by an overwhelming vote, over 300 Members of the House overrode the President's veto. Now we face the same task in the Senate. It is my hope we can quickly and resoundingly overridethe President's veto and provide our troops with what they need. I will echo what the chairman said. You can go through all the thousands of pages, literally, but what is the most significant aspect of this legislation is keeping faith with the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. So if anyone has any thoughts about their vote, just think about those men and women who are all across the world putting their lives at risk while their families share that risk and that sense of danger and sacrifice. That is what I think has motivated the chairman and myself and all of our colleagues on the committee and throughout this Senate to work hard to get this bill passed. There are several reasons being advanced by the President for suggesting that this bill should be vetoed--the veto should be upheld. One reason is that he claims the bill fails to include critical national security measures. Yet this legislation provides critical tools and authorities for the Department of Homeland Security to perform network hunting for threats and vulnerabilities on Federal networks. These tools and authorities would help to counter breaches like the SolarWinds hack, which is possibly the largest intrusion into our system we have ever seen by a foreign nation state adversary. We do not yet know the extent and the degree of intrusion that we have suffered. In fact, we weren't aware of this intrusion for many, many months. One of the disconcerting aspects is that it was discovered by a private company that is one of the most, if not the most sophisticated cyber intrusion expert in the world. Yet they were penetrated. So we have a serious, serious situation on our hands. This legislation would start giving basic tools, which would allow our cyber security experts to go into other Departments to look at their procedures, their policies, all of their cyber activities, and recommend corrections. In fact, this bill has done more, I think, for cyber based on the work of the Cyber Solarium Commission, which was chaired by Senator Angus King and Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and also aided significantly by my colleague Congressman Jim Langevin of Rhode Island. They put the work together. We took a lot of the Solarium's work and put it into this bill. So there is absolutely no credence to the issue that we have not dealt with national security and cyber intrusions in particular. Then again, the President, in his veto message, wrote that one of the reasons is the failure to essentially repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But this issue has nothing to do with the military--nothing at all. It was designed years ago to provide legal protections to social media companies so that they could expand and grow. Frankly, I think it has worked beyond our wildest imaginations. Everyone recognizes it should be reformed, but reform requires thoughtful, responsible analysis of the legislation. The effects of the legislation should offer both sides the opportunity to explain positions. None of that was done, and none of that can be done before we conclude this legislative session. It is more, I think, a personal feud of the President, the section 230 repeal, than it is one of careful, deliberate, thoughtful legislation by the Senate. There is another reason the President has used, and that is we have established a commission to make recommendations for the renaming and removal of symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate Confederates who served voluntarily with the Confederacy. There is a clear exemption, by the way, for gravestones that we would absolutely respect. But these individuals--many of them who were on Active service with our Army or Navy at the time--decided to consciously fight against the United States of America. It is that simple. Yet we have bases that are named after them. The President said this is part of the American heritage of victory and freedom, but, again, these are named after men who took up arms against the United States. In some cases--in most cases, they weren't particularly exemplary generals, with some exceptions. And it was done in a way that I think was not to honor the service of these individuals but to advance other forces. I think it is time that this history be changed, that this chapter be closed, and the senior Defense Department officials have indicated they are open to these changes. There is bipartisan support for cooperation on this issue. It passed the committee. It passed the floor. It passed the House. Now, it is in this legislation. When the President vetoed the bill, he also said it is a ``gift to China and Russia.'' I would strenuously disagree. This is one of the strongest bills yet on countering the threat China poses to the United States and our partners, including allies such as India, Taiwan, and other countries and regions. Among the provisions of this legislation is the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. That is a new authority for the Department of Defense, modeled after the European Deterrence Initiative and authorizes an additional $150 million in funding. This was the work--I was proud to collaborate, but the lead was the chairman, Chairman Inhofe, and I was his copilot on that one. This is the first time we really stepped back and said: We have a new threat--significant threat--rising in the Pacific. We have to take a holistic review of strategy, capabilities, equipment, and we have to make this a top priority. So rather than doing nothing about China, as the President alleges, I think we have made one of the most significant steps forward in consciously recognizing the relationship that has developed between China and the United States. With regard to Russia and Europe, the conference report enhances our ability to deter Russian aggression, maintains strong support for Ukraine, and reaffirms our commitment to the transatlantic partnership, including by calling for a strong U.S. force posture in Germany. Now, President Trump also vetoed this legislation because he wants the ability to remove our military from ``far away and very unappreciative lands.'' Those are his words. Particularly, I have concern about the situation in Afghanistan. First--and I have been to Afghanistan somewhere close to 20 times--since the beginning. In fact, I was on the first congressional delegation to go in January after the invasion. I have tried to pay attention to what is going on there. And one point is that the Afghan people have struggled and fought with us side by side. They have suffered greatly. I don't think it is right to say they are unappreciative. I think every day they have been suffering casualties. They have been fighting with our soldiers--in fact, in some cases, saving and helping our soldiers survive on the field. Second, essentially, the provision allows the President to make the decision. In fact, he can waive all the provisions we built in by simply declaring that it is in the national security interests of the United States and communicating that to the respective leaders in the House and the Senate. That is something that is almost pro forma. So the notion that this seriously hampers his ability is misplaced. What it does, though, is signal that we have to be very careful in recognizing all of the equities that are involved in Afghanistan. The fact is that there are numerous terrorist groups there, and we have to maintain a counterterrorism presence; the fact that, as I indicated before, the Government of Afghanistan, the Afghan people, in many cases, have suffered more than we have considering the onslaught of the Taliban and other forces. So, again, I don't think that reason measures up to the demands. The National Defense Authorization Act has passed for 59 years. We need to ensure it will pass for 60 years by overriding the President's veto. The House, as I said, has already done that--322 to 87. I encourage my colleagues to show similar support for our military personnel and their families and override this veto. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. REED | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7980-2 | null | 2,060 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to rise and discuss the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. First, I would like to salute the chairman. He has done an extraordinary job. We have both served on the committee for many years, and this is probably the most challenging year we have had due to many different factors: the pandemic, the virtual hearings, all those things. And this has been particularly challenging, and the chairman, at every point, stood up to the challenge and led us. I want to thank him for that. It was a pleasure working with him. We all recognize that this legislation passed both Chambers, the House and the Senate, by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. And it is very important legislation. That is why it earned this bipartisan support. It enhances our national security. It strengthens our military readiness and defense capabilities. It protects our forces and their families and supports the defense industrial base. Despite all that it does for our troops and their families, President Trump waited until the 10th day after he received it and vetoed it the last day he could exercise his veto. That was December 23, which made quite a Christmas for our military personnel and for all of my colleagues who are here today to start the process of responding to that veto. The House already took the first step. They returned on Monday. Once again, by an overwhelming vote, over 300 Members of the House overrode the President's veto. Now we face the same task in the Senate. It is my hope we can quickly and resoundingly overridethe President's veto and provide our troops with what they need. I will echo what the chairman said. You can go through all the thousands of pages, literally, but what is the most significant aspect of this legislation is keeping faith with the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. So if anyone has any thoughts about their vote, just think about those men and women who are all across the world putting their lives at risk while their families share that risk and that sense of danger and sacrifice. That is what I think has motivated the chairman and myself and all of our colleagues on the committee and throughout this Senate to work hard to get this bill passed. There are several reasons being advanced by the President for suggesting that this bill should be vetoed--the veto should be upheld. One reason is that he claims the bill fails to include critical national security measures. Yet this legislation provides critical tools and authorities for the Department of Homeland Security to perform network hunting for threats and vulnerabilities on Federal networks. These tools and authorities would help to counter breaches like the SolarWinds hack, which is possibly the largest intrusion into our system we have ever seen by a foreign nation state adversary. We do not yet know the extent and the degree of intrusion that we have suffered. In fact, we weren't aware of this intrusion for many, many months. One of the disconcerting aspects is that it was discovered by a private company that is one of the most, if not the most sophisticated cyber intrusion expert in the world. Yet they were penetrated. So we have a serious, serious situation on our hands. This legislation would start giving basic tools, which would allow our cyber security experts to go into other Departments to look at their procedures, their policies, all of their cyber activities, and recommend corrections. In fact, this bill has done more, I think, for cyber based on the work of the Cyber Solarium Commission, which was chaired by Senator Angus King and Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and also aided significantly by my colleague Congressman Jim Langevin of Rhode Island. They put the work together. We took a lot of the Solarium's work and put it into this bill. So there is absolutely no credence to the issue that we have not dealt with national security and cyber intrusions in particular. Then again, the President, in his veto message, wrote that one of the reasons is the failure to essentially repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But this issue has nothing to do with the military--nothing at all. It was designed years ago to provide legal protections to social media companies so that they could expand and grow. Frankly, I think it has worked beyond our wildest imaginations. Everyone recognizes it should be reformed, but reform requires thoughtful, responsible analysis of the legislation. The effects of the legislation should offer both sides the opportunity to explain positions. None of that was done, and none of that can be done before we conclude this legislative session. It is more, I think, a personal feud of the President, the section 230 repeal, than it is one of careful, deliberate, thoughtful legislation by the Senate. There is another reason the President has used, and that is we have established a commission to make recommendations for the renaming and removal of symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate Confederates who served voluntarily with the Confederacy. There is a clear exemption, by the way, for gravestones that we would absolutely respect. But these individuals--many of them who were on Active service with our Army or Navy at the time--decided to consciously fight against the United States of America. It is that simple. Yet we have bases that are named after them. The President said this is part of the American heritage of victory and freedom, but, again, these are named after men who took up arms against the United States. In some cases--in most cases, they weren't particularly exemplary generals, with some exceptions. And it was done in a way that I think was not to honor the service of these individuals but to advance other forces. I think it is time that this history be changed, that this chapter be closed, and the senior Defense Department officials have indicated they are open to these changes. There is bipartisan support for cooperation on this issue. It passed the committee. It passed the floor. It passed the House. Now, it is in this legislation. When the President vetoed the bill, he also said it is a ``gift to China and Russia.'' I would strenuously disagree. This is one of the strongest bills yet on countering the threat China poses to the United States and our partners, including allies such as India, Taiwan, and other countries and regions. Among the provisions of this legislation is the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. That is a new authority for the Department of Defense, modeled after the European Deterrence Initiative and authorizes an additional $150 million in funding. This was the work--I was proud to collaborate, but the lead was the chairman, Chairman Inhofe, and I was his copilot on that one. This is the first time we really stepped back and said: We have a new threat--significant threat--rising in the Pacific. We have to take a holistic review of strategy, capabilities, equipment, and we have to make this a top priority. So rather than doing nothing about China, as the President alleges, I think we have made one of the most significant steps forward in consciously recognizing the relationship that has developed between China and the United States. With regard to Russia and Europe, the conference report enhances our ability to deter Russian aggression, maintains strong support for Ukraine, and reaffirms our commitment to the transatlantic partnership, including by calling for a strong U.S. force posture in Germany. Now, President Trump also vetoed this legislation because he wants the ability to remove our military from ``far away and very unappreciative lands.'' Those are his words. Particularly, I have concern about the situation in Afghanistan. First--and I have been to Afghanistan somewhere close to 20 times--since the beginning. In fact, I was on the first congressional delegation to go in January after the invasion. I have tried to pay attention to what is going on there. And one point is that the Afghan people have struggled and fought with us side by side. They have suffered greatly. I don't think it is right to say they are unappreciative. I think every day they have been suffering casualties. They have been fighting with our soldiers--in fact, in some cases, saving and helping our soldiers survive on the field. Second, essentially, the provision allows the President to make the decision. In fact, he can waive all the provisions we built in by simply declaring that it is in the national security interests of the United States and communicating that to the respective leaders in the House and the Senate. That is something that is almost pro forma. So the notion that this seriously hampers his ability is misplaced. What it does, though, is signal that we have to be very careful in recognizing all of the equities that are involved in Afghanistan. The fact is that there are numerous terrorist groups there, and we have to maintain a counterterrorism presence; the fact that, as I indicated before, the Government of Afghanistan, the Afghan people, in many cases, have suffered more than we have considering the onslaught of the Taliban and other forces. So, again, I don't think that reason measures up to the demands. The National Defense Authorization Act has passed for 59 years. We need to ensure it will pass for 60 years by overriding the President's veto. The House, as I said, has already done that--322 to 87. I encourage my colleagues to show similar support for our military personnel and their families and override this veto. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. REED | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7980-2 | null | 2,061 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we work to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, we must not forget our Nation's epidemic of gun violence that kills over 100 Americans every day. Even during the holiday season, the deadly toll of shootings has continued. On the day after Christmas, a gunman opened fire at a bowling alley restaurant in Rockford, IL, killing three and wounding three more. Mayor Tom McNamara has shown real leadership in this crisis. I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Record following my remarks. Thomas Furseth, Dennis Steinhoff, and Jerome Woodfork were murdered in that shooting. Among the wounded victims were a 14-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl. We mourn the lives we lost and pray for all the victims and their families. We also give thanks to the first responders who so often rush toward the sound of gunfire so they can save as many lives as they can. In this case, officers from the Rockford Police Department arrived at the scene within 1 minute of the 911 calls and took the shooter into custody. Their conduct may sound routine to some, but make no mistake, their lives were at risk, and their courage was exceptional. We should never take the valor of so many in law enforcement for granted. In the city of Chicago, at least 30 people were shot, 8 fatally, during the Christmas weekend. The victims included a 57-year-old man who was killed while driving in his car, a young man killed while standing in a park at 9 in the morning, and a 24-year-old woman killed while sitting in a parked car. We mourn these victims and pray for their families and for the wounded. But we must also dedicate ourselves to reducing these deadly shootings and to making our streets, our schools, and our neighborhoods safer. This is a national problem. According to the Gun Violence Archive, on Christmas Day and the day after, there were six mass shootings across the country, defined as an incident where at least four people were shot. There have been 23 such shootings so far in December. Has this wanton, deadly violence become so routine that we are numb to it until it touches our homes and our families? We must do better. Have we become so indifferent to gun violence in America that Senators in the highest legislative body in our land refuse to try to make our Nation safer? We must work for reforms like universal background checks and cracking down on illicit gun trafficking. And we must work to support children and families who have faced violent trauma and to address disparities in healthcare and economic opportunity that contribute to increased violence. Too many funerals, too many tears, too many lives lost to the scourge of gun violence. We must do better. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2020-12-30-pt1-PgS7983 | null | 2,062 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker: H.R. 1418. An act to restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. H.R. 1492. An act to update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for inclusion in, the Yucca House National Monument. H.R. 2502. An act to amend title 40, United States Code, to require certain prospectuses for public buildings to be made publicly available, and for other purposes. H.R. 3250. An act to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the sites associated with the life and legacy of the noted American philanthropist and business executive Julius Rosenwald, with a special focus on the Rosenwald Schools, and for other purposes. H.R. 5126. An act to require individuals fishing for Gulf reef fish to use certain descending devices, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgH9173 | null | 2,063 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate was finally able to proceed to this year's National Defense Authorization Act. A few of our Democratic colleagues have pulled out all the stops to hold back this crucial bill, but last night, a big bipartisan majority of 80 Senators voted to proceed. There should be nothing controversial about giving our brave men and women in uniform the tools and training they need to stay safe. There should be nothing controversial about continuing the work of rebuilding and modernizing our capabilities. It should be a nonpartisan proposition that America should keep pace with Russia and China rather than slip behind. We have enacted an annual NDAA for 59 straight years and counting. In the next few days, the easy way or the hard way, we are going to do our job once again. This body will fulfill our responsibility to the men and women who protect our country. The Senate will be here until we finish this bipartisan legislation. Now, for several days, we heard some Senators say Congress must send more cash to high-earning households that haven't seen any income disruption during COVID-19. Our colleagues who purport to be the champions of vulnerable Americans now say that what struggling people really need is for Congress to stop focusing on targeted relief for them specifically and, instead, to send thousands of dollars to people who don't need the help. Experts from across the political spectrum agree that our colleague from Vermont is dead wrong on this. Socialism for rich people is a terrible way to help the American families who are actually struggling. Let me say that again. Borrowing from our grandkids to do socialism for rich people is a terrible way to get help for families who actually need it. Washington Democrats took President Trump's suggestion and skewed it so the checks would benefit even more high-earning households. Imagine a family of five where the parents earn $250,000 per year and have not seen any income loss this past year. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Sanders want to send them $5,000 from Uncle Sam. They make a quarter of a million dollars, nobody is out of work, but our so-called progressive friends say the household needs ``survivalchecks.'' In fact, they believe a family of five should have to earn $350,000 before the spigot of government money would stop entirely. Socialism for rich people. That is what Speaker Pelosi and Senator Sanders have sketched out. A terrible way to help those who need it, and experts across the political spectrum agree. The liberal editors of the Washington Post have blasted so-called progressives demanding a nontargeted giveaway that would give ``huge amounts'' to ``perfectly comfortable families.'' Larry Summers, who ran the Treasury Department for President Clinton and the National Economic Council for President Obama, says there is ``no good economic argument'' for more nontargeted checks with no linkage to need. The liberal New York Times reported this morning that a majority of the households that get nontargeted checks do not end up spending them on urgent needs but rather just add it to their savings. ``We know where the pockets of need are,'' said one economist, and ``putting [money] there would be a much more efficient use.'' Fortunately, though some of our colleagues seem to have forgotten, that is exactly what we did only a week ago. It has been less than 5 days since President Trump signed into law another historic bipartisan rescue package targeted to Americans who actually need the help. We passed an entire second round of PPP loans to save small business jobs, targeted to the hardest hit. We renewed multiple kinds of additional benefits for unemployed workers, including an extra $300 supplement every week. There are billions for targeted food assistance, billions for targeted rental assistance, and many billions of dollars for vaccine distribution so we can finally beat this virus and reopen the economy in full. These are the kinds of targeted emergency programs that directly help the most vulnerable, and we just poured almost another trillion dollars into them, less than 5 days ago, along with more direct checks that are already arriving in households' accounts. That is what we did just 5 days ago. This crisis has not affected everyone equally. The data show that many upper middle-class Americans have kept their jobs, worked remotely, and remained totally financially comfortable. On the other hand, some of our fellow citizens had their entire existence turned upside down and continue to suffer terribly. We do not need to let the Speaker of the House do socialism for rich people in order to help those who need help. Our duty, both to struggling Americans and to taxpayers, is to focus on targeted relief that will have the maximum impact and help the people who need it the most. That is what the experts say we should do. That is where there is broad bipartisan support, and that is exactly what we did less than 1 week ago, when nearly $900 billion in more targeted relief was signed into law for our people | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7985-8 | null | 2,064 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate today meets for a rare New Year's Eve session for one reason and one reason only: The Republican leader has refused to allow us to vote on legislation to provide the American people $2,000 checks. He has twice objected to my requests to set a time for a vote on the measure, claiming yesterday that direct stimulus checks were ``poorly targeted,'' bemoaning the idea that some of these checks might go into ``the hands of Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help.'' Senator Toomey said much the same thing. Well, funny, I don't remember the Republican leader and Senator Toomey complaining about how a $2 trillion across-the-board corporate tax cut was ``poorly targeted'' because some large companies didn't need the help. No, when corporations get a blanket tax break, that is fine by the Republican majority. When the average American gets a little help from their government, it is ``poorly targeted.'' I hope that every American heard the objections by these Republican Senators. I hope every American who has their water or heat or electricity shut off or had eviction notices stapled on top of one another to their door or had to choose which meal to skip on a given day--I hope they all heard the reason they will not receive $2,000 checks is because Leader McConnell thinks it could wind up in the hands of ``Democrats' rich friends.'' Let's be very clear. There is one way and only one way to pass $2,000 checks before the end of the year, and that is to pass the House bill. It is the only way to get the American people the $2,000 checks they need and deserve. The House is gone for the session. Any modification or addition to the House bill can't become law. Either the Senate takes up and passes the House bill or struggling Americans will not get $2,000 checks during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Leader McConnell knows this. So he has said that the Senate can only vote on a bill that combines the checks with other unrelated partisan policies: a repeal of section 230 and an investigation into the President's dishonest and bogus claims of election fraud. The Republican leader claims that President Trump insists that all three issues must be addressed in one bill, but, of course, the President has made no such demand. President Trump couldn't care less about how the bills are packaged in Congress. So the Republican leader has invented an excuse to prevent a clean, up-or-down, yes-or-no vote on $2,000 checks from coming to the floor. This maneuver to combine all three issues is intended to kill the possibility of $2,000 checks ever becoming law. Just to prove it, let me make this offer to the Republican majority. We are willing to vote on the other issues that President Trump mentioned--all the issues the Republican leader says must be addressed--so long as we vote on them separately. That way, $2,000 checks could become law, and we could debate all the President's supposed concerns. We can vote on setting up a commission to look at the President's roundly rejected claims of voter fraud. We would also have the commission look at voter suppression and gerrymandering. That is completely unrelated to helping Americans pay their bills, but we are willing to take a look at the whole picture. Just give us a vote on the House-passed bill so we can get help now for people who desperately need it. Heck, we can also have a vote on repealing 230. We can do it today. We will use Leader McConnell's exact language. He wouldn't agree to that because he knows his caucus wouldn't actually support such an act. Unlike the President, some Members of this body understand what 230 means. They understand that section 230, which certainly needs change, actually enables the President to spew his lies. We all know the 117th Congress will have to take a close look at the relationship between liability and reckless speech on the internet. But if Leader McConnell wants a vote on these issues, we are here for it. Just give us a vote on the House-passed bill, and we can vote on whatever rightwing conspiracy theory you would like. We can even vote to set up a special blue-ribbon commission to determine whether Georgia's secretary of State has a brother named Ron, if that would make our Republican friends happy. Just don't let these conspiracy theories and Presidential fantasies get in the way of helping actual people--people whose livelihoods have been torn apart by this pandemic, people whose lives have been torn apart by the administration's mismanagement of this pandemic, people who need just a little direct assistance. The President's term, thankfully, will end in 20 days. It is a term that has been marked by hate and division and turmoil. He has so far used his term to enrich himself and the wealthy. Let's close out the term on a good note. For once, he wants to help regular people, to give Americans a leg up. Let's allow him to do that. We have a chance at the end of this painful year to give Americans a reason to have some hope in 2021. The onlything standing in the way is the Republican Senate majority. In a moment, I will, once again, ask consent that the Senate set a time for a vote on the House bill to provide $2,000 checks to the American people. Remember, the Democrats are willing to vote on all of the other issues that the Republicans say the President supposedly cares about. Just let us vote on a clean bill with the $2,000 checks. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 645, H.R. 9051, a bill to increase the recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 for individuals; that the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7986-2 | null | 2,065 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate today meets for a rare New Year's Eve session for one reason and one reason only: The Republican leader has refused to allow us to vote on legislation to provide the American people $2,000 checks. He has twice objected to my requests to set a time for a vote on the measure, claiming yesterday that direct stimulus checks were ``poorly targeted,'' bemoaning the idea that some of these checks might go into ``the hands of Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help.'' Senator Toomey said much the same thing. Well, funny, I don't remember the Republican leader and Senator Toomey complaining about how a $2 trillion across-the-board corporate tax cut was ``poorly targeted'' because some large companies didn't need the help. No, when corporations get a blanket tax break, that is fine by the Republican majority. When the average American gets a little help from their government, it is ``poorly targeted.'' I hope that every American heard the objections by these Republican Senators. I hope every American who has their water or heat or electricity shut off or had eviction notices stapled on top of one another to their door or had to choose which meal to skip on a given day--I hope they all heard the reason they will not receive $2,000 checks is because Leader McConnell thinks it could wind up in the hands of ``Democrats' rich friends.'' Let's be very clear. There is one way and only one way to pass $2,000 checks before the end of the year, and that is to pass the House bill. It is the only way to get the American people the $2,000 checks they need and deserve. The House is gone for the session. Any modification or addition to the House bill can't become law. Either the Senate takes up and passes the House bill or struggling Americans will not get $2,000 checks during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Leader McConnell knows this. So he has said that the Senate can only vote on a bill that combines the checks with other unrelated partisan policies: a repeal of section 230 and an investigation into the President's dishonest and bogus claims of election fraud. The Republican leader claims that President Trump insists that all three issues must be addressed in one bill, but, of course, the President has made no such demand. President Trump couldn't care less about how the bills are packaged in Congress. So the Republican leader has invented an excuse to prevent a clean, up-or-down, yes-or-no vote on $2,000 checks from coming to the floor. This maneuver to combine all three issues is intended to kill the possibility of $2,000 checks ever becoming law. Just to prove it, let me make this offer to the Republican majority. We are willing to vote on the other issues that President Trump mentioned--all the issues the Republican leader says must be addressed--so long as we vote on them separately. That way, $2,000 checks could become law, and we could debate all the President's supposed concerns. We can vote on setting up a commission to look at the President's roundly rejected claims of voter fraud. We would also have the commission look at voter suppression and gerrymandering. That is completely unrelated to helping Americans pay their bills, but we are willing to take a look at the whole picture. Just give us a vote on the House-passed bill so we can get help now for people who desperately need it. Heck, we can also have a vote on repealing 230. We can do it today. We will use Leader McConnell's exact language. He wouldn't agree to that because he knows his caucus wouldn't actually support such an act. Unlike the President, some Members of this body understand what 230 means. They understand that section 230, which certainly needs change, actually enables the President to spew his lies. We all know the 117th Congress will have to take a close look at the relationship between liability and reckless speech on the internet. But if Leader McConnell wants a vote on these issues, we are here for it. Just give us a vote on the House-passed bill, and we can vote on whatever rightwing conspiracy theory you would like. We can even vote to set up a special blue-ribbon commission to determine whether Georgia's secretary of State has a brother named Ron, if that would make our Republican friends happy. Just don't let these conspiracy theories and Presidential fantasies get in the way of helping actual people--people whose livelihoods have been torn apart by this pandemic, people whose lives have been torn apart by the administration's mismanagement of this pandemic, people who need just a little direct assistance. The President's term, thankfully, will end in 20 days. It is a term that has been marked by hate and division and turmoil. He has so far used his term to enrich himself and the wealthy. Let's close out the term on a good note. For once, he wants to help regular people, to give Americans a leg up. Let's allow him to do that. We have a chance at the end of this painful year to give Americans a reason to have some hope in 2021. The onlything standing in the way is the Republican Senate majority. In a moment, I will, once again, ask consent that the Senate set a time for a vote on the House bill to provide $2,000 checks to the American people. Remember, the Democrats are willing to vote on all of the other issues that the Republicans say the President supposedly cares about. Just let us vote on a clean bill with the $2,000 checks. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 645, H.R. 9051, a bill to increase the recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 for individuals; that the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7986-2 | null | 2,066 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate today meets for a rare New Year's Eve session for one reason and one reason only: The Republican leader has refused to allow us to vote on legislation to provide the American people $2,000 checks. He has twice objected to my requests to set a time for a vote on the measure, claiming yesterday that direct stimulus checks were ``poorly targeted,'' bemoaning the idea that some of these checks might go into ``the hands of Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help.'' Senator Toomey said much the same thing. Well, funny, I don't remember the Republican leader and Senator Toomey complaining about how a $2 trillion across-the-board corporate tax cut was ``poorly targeted'' because some large companies didn't need the help. No, when corporations get a blanket tax break, that is fine by the Republican majority. When the average American gets a little help from their government, it is ``poorly targeted.'' I hope that every American heard the objections by these Republican Senators. I hope every American who has their water or heat or electricity shut off or had eviction notices stapled on top of one another to their door or had to choose which meal to skip on a given day--I hope they all heard the reason they will not receive $2,000 checks is because Leader McConnell thinks it could wind up in the hands of ``Democrats' rich friends.'' Let's be very clear. There is one way and only one way to pass $2,000 checks before the end of the year, and that is to pass the House bill. It is the only way to get the American people the $2,000 checks they need and deserve. The House is gone for the session. Any modification or addition to the House bill can't become law. Either the Senate takes up and passes the House bill or struggling Americans will not get $2,000 checks during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Leader McConnell knows this. So he has said that the Senate can only vote on a bill that combines the checks with other unrelated partisan policies: a repeal of section 230 and an investigation into the President's dishonest and bogus claims of election fraud. The Republican leader claims that President Trump insists that all three issues must be addressed in one bill, but, of course, the President has made no such demand. President Trump couldn't care less about how the bills are packaged in Congress. So the Republican leader has invented an excuse to prevent a clean, up-or-down, yes-or-no vote on $2,000 checks from coming to the floor. This maneuver to combine all three issues is intended to kill the possibility of $2,000 checks ever becoming law. Just to prove it, let me make this offer to the Republican majority. We are willing to vote on the other issues that President Trump mentioned--all the issues the Republican leader says must be addressed--so long as we vote on them separately. That way, $2,000 checks could become law, and we could debate all the President's supposed concerns. We can vote on setting up a commission to look at the President's roundly rejected claims of voter fraud. We would also have the commission look at voter suppression and gerrymandering. That is completely unrelated to helping Americans pay their bills, but we are willing to take a look at the whole picture. Just give us a vote on the House-passed bill so we can get help now for people who desperately need it. Heck, we can also have a vote on repealing 230. We can do it today. We will use Leader McConnell's exact language. He wouldn't agree to that because he knows his caucus wouldn't actually support such an act. Unlike the President, some Members of this body understand what 230 means. They understand that section 230, which certainly needs change, actually enables the President to spew his lies. We all know the 117th Congress will have to take a close look at the relationship between liability and reckless speech on the internet. But if Leader McConnell wants a vote on these issues, we are here for it. Just give us a vote on the House-passed bill, and we can vote on whatever rightwing conspiracy theory you would like. We can even vote to set up a special blue-ribbon commission to determine whether Georgia's secretary of State has a brother named Ron, if that would make our Republican friends happy. Just don't let these conspiracy theories and Presidential fantasies get in the way of helping actual people--people whose livelihoods have been torn apart by this pandemic, people whose lives have been torn apart by the administration's mismanagement of this pandemic, people who need just a little direct assistance. The President's term, thankfully, will end in 20 days. It is a term that has been marked by hate and division and turmoil. He has so far used his term to enrich himself and the wealthy. Let's close out the term on a good note. For once, he wants to help regular people, to give Americans a leg up. Let's allow him to do that. We have a chance at the end of this painful year to give Americans a reason to have some hope in 2021. The onlything standing in the way is the Republican Senate majority. In a moment, I will, once again, ask consent that the Senate set a time for a vote on the House bill to provide $2,000 checks to the American people. Remember, the Democrats are willing to vote on all of the other issues that the Republicans say the President supposedly cares about. Just let us vote on a clean bill with the $2,000 checks. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 645, H.R. 9051, a bill to increase the recovery rebate amounts to $2,000 for individuals; that the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7986-2 | null | 2,067 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to honor my friend Gary Herbert, Governor of the State of Utah for the last 12 years, who, after a long career in public service, is now embarking on a really well-deserved, hard-earned retirement. He served the State of Utah and has done so with great enthusiasm and dedication and spirit, and I am grateful to have worked alongside him throughout his tenure serving our great State. Gary Herbert was born in American Fork, UT, and grew up in Orem. He served a 2-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the east coast and later attended Brigham Young University, my alma mater. He first began his public service in college, serving in the Utah Army National Guard for 6 years and eventually becoming a staff sergeant. After his time in the National Guard, he set up a real estate firm and was very successful, eventually becoming the president of the Utah Association of Realtors. He also served as president of the Utah Association of Counties, by the way. Starting in 1990, he served as a commissioner on the Utah County Commission. He served there for 14 years, and it was at that point that he began his statewide service within Utah. You see, in 2004, when Jon Huntsman ran for the Governor's seat, Gary became his running mate, running alongside Huntsman as his Lieutenant Governor, with the pair going on to win the race in November. It was then that I first got to know Gary Herbert personally, when I was hired to be Governor Huntsman's general counsel. One of my first memories of Gary Herbert--which, to me, seems like it was just the day before yesterday--occurred when we all began moving into the Governor's office suite, just the day before Herbert and Huntsman were sworn into office. Gary came in and provided us all with a warm welcome, but he didn't stop at the welcome. He offered really sound and heartfelt advice about the importance of staying grounded as we were entering the political fray. He explained that long after our service and the Huntsman-Herbert administration expired, we want to be able to look back and be pleased about the relationships that we had formed with each other, but especially the relationshipsthat we had maintained with our families, our children, and God. I soon learned that Governor Herbert, in addition to being wise and in addition to being a skilled and valuable statesman, was also a formidable athlete. Right after he and Governor Huntsman were sworn in, the staff got together as a team several times in the Governor's mansion, where we soon discovered there was a ping-pong table in the basement. I then learned the hard way that Governor Herbert's athletic skills, including his ping-pong skills, are off the charts. While severing Governor Huntsman, I always found Gary to be friendly, approachable, and always willing to tackle every single assignment with eagerness and poise. Whenever Governor Huntsman's schedule became chaotic or changed unexpectedly, which happens in any Governor's office or any Senator's office, for that matter, particularly at certain times of the year, Lieutenant Governor Herbert would routinely be dispatched to speak on Huntsman's behalf, often sending him to remote corners of the State and often at really inconvenient times. He never once complained. And he was not only willing, but he was always eager and happy. He felt fortunate for the opportunity to help. That is the kind of enthusiasm that the people of the State of Utah have benefitted from for so long as a result of Gary Herbert's service. You see, he has never lost that--not during his entire time as Lieutenant Governor and not during his entire time as Governor. You can tell that he is exactly where he wants to be and that he feels privileged and he has been blessed to be able to serve the people of Utah. Likewise, whenever there was an issue that needed to be addressed by the Governor, even within the office or around the capitol compound, but where the Governor was unable to meet with the particular group in question, Gary was always assigned to the case. He would meet with, as he described it, all the different stakeholders. He would get together the legislators, county commissioners, citizens from this or that part of the State, lobbyists, lawyers who may have been involved, in addition to other members of Governor Huntsman's administration. He would bring them all in together, and he would wade through all the intricate and often pedestrian details of the matter. You see, he wanted to get to the bottom of the issue. He wanted to understand it. What is more, he had the skill of figuring out the best path forward for all parties involved and for making everyone feel heard and understood. If ever, whenever, there was a way to achieve a win-win, Gary found it, and he brought people to it, and they were always grateful as a result. The same traits that I saw in him as Lieutenant Governor would go on to make him an effective and beloved Governor himself. In office now as Governor since 2009, Gary Herbert is currently the Nation's longest serving Governor, and our State has seen exciting achievement and tremendous prosperity with Governor Herbert at the helm. In the last 8 years, Utah has seen continued, steady growth in our economy, with improvements in our GDP, number of jobs, and unemployment rate. We have seen the boom of Silicon Slopes. We celebrated the sesquicentennial of the driving of the Golden Spike, when it was an honor to stand alongside Governor and Mrs. Herbert at that celebratory reenactment. On that particular occasion, Governor Herbert and his wife Jeanette showed their characteristic enthusiasm by arriving in their finest 1869 apparel just to commemorate the moment, and it made all the difference. It made it all feel much more authentic. So, too, was it an honor to join Gary when President Trump came to Utah to announce his decision to shrink the Bears Ears National Monument, when we could all stand together and celebrate the fact that someone in Washington had heard our concerns within the State and saw fit to redraw the boundaries in a manner more compatible with local interests and concerns. Through his enthusiasm and his zeal, Gary Herbert has championed our State and the things that we stand for. He has done so very consistently and very enthusiastically. He can rattle off figures and metrics about Utah at the drop of a hat. I am convinced this man can do it in his sleep and do so infectiously and persuasively. And he is a compelling spokesman for our State's values. His spirit has helped Utah to attract talent and investment not only from throughout the United States but from throughout the world and to make it the good place that it is to live. Not only that, but Gary has been an instrumental partner in supporting initiatives that reflect and strengthen the values of our State. To champion the reclamation of our lands, he signed into law the Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act. He also signed into law innovative criminal justice reforms in Utah. He was at the cutting edge of that movement, making a far-reaching impact across our State and that ended up having impacts elsewhere. In fact, his work in Utah in criminal justice reform helped pave the way for the work that Congress and President Trump were able to achieve at the Federal level through the passage of the First Step Act. He has been a strong supporter of Utah's family culture and was helpful in the Senate's work promoting the child tax credit during our tax reform discussions just 3 years ago. On a more personal note, Gary Herbert also had the wisdom to put my brother Tom on the Utah Supreme Court. In so doing, he has been a champion for textualism, the notion that judges are there to interpret the law based on what the law says, rather than on the basis of what it might have said. For all of his public achievements, Gary is perhaps most proud and always most conscious of and most aware of and most concerned about his own role as a husband, as a father, and as a grandfather. Gary and his wife Jeanette have 6 children together, as well as 16 grandchildren, and he is known to encourage them to ``follow in his footsteps and marry up.'' In a myriad of ways, Governor Herbert has been a champion and a spokesman for all that is good about our State. It has been an honor to serve the people of Utah with him, and I wish Governor Herbert and his wife Jeanette all the best as they embark on the next chapter of their lives together. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7990 | null | 2,068 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to honor my friend Gary Herbert, Governor of the State of Utah for the last 12 years, who, after a long career in public service, is now embarking on a really well-deserved, hard-earned retirement. He served the State of Utah and has done so with great enthusiasm and dedication and spirit, and I am grateful to have worked alongside him throughout his tenure serving our great State. Gary Herbert was born in American Fork, UT, and grew up in Orem. He served a 2-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the east coast and later attended Brigham Young University, my alma mater. He first began his public service in college, serving in the Utah Army National Guard for 6 years and eventually becoming a staff sergeant. After his time in the National Guard, he set up a real estate firm and was very successful, eventually becoming the president of the Utah Association of Realtors. He also served as president of the Utah Association of Counties, by the way. Starting in 1990, he served as a commissioner on the Utah County Commission. He served there for 14 years, and it was at that point that he began his statewide service within Utah. You see, in 2004, when Jon Huntsman ran for the Governor's seat, Gary became his running mate, running alongside Huntsman as his Lieutenant Governor, with the pair going on to win the race in November. It was then that I first got to know Gary Herbert personally, when I was hired to be Governor Huntsman's general counsel. One of my first memories of Gary Herbert--which, to me, seems like it was just the day before yesterday--occurred when we all began moving into the Governor's office suite, just the day before Herbert and Huntsman were sworn into office. Gary came in and provided us all with a warm welcome, but he didn't stop at the welcome. He offered really sound and heartfelt advice about the importance of staying grounded as we were entering the political fray. He explained that long after our service and the Huntsman-Herbert administration expired, we want to be able to look back and be pleased about the relationships that we had formed with each other, but especially the relationshipsthat we had maintained with our families, our children, and God. I soon learned that Governor Herbert, in addition to being wise and in addition to being a skilled and valuable statesman, was also a formidable athlete. Right after he and Governor Huntsman were sworn in, the staff got together as a team several times in the Governor's mansion, where we soon discovered there was a ping-pong table in the basement. I then learned the hard way that Governor Herbert's athletic skills, including his ping-pong skills, are off the charts. While severing Governor Huntsman, I always found Gary to be friendly, approachable, and always willing to tackle every single assignment with eagerness and poise. Whenever Governor Huntsman's schedule became chaotic or changed unexpectedly, which happens in any Governor's office or any Senator's office, for that matter, particularly at certain times of the year, Lieutenant Governor Herbert would routinely be dispatched to speak on Huntsman's behalf, often sending him to remote corners of the State and often at really inconvenient times. He never once complained. And he was not only willing, but he was always eager and happy. He felt fortunate for the opportunity to help. That is the kind of enthusiasm that the people of the State of Utah have benefitted from for so long as a result of Gary Herbert's service. You see, he has never lost that--not during his entire time as Lieutenant Governor and not during his entire time as Governor. You can tell that he is exactly where he wants to be and that he feels privileged and he has been blessed to be able to serve the people of Utah. Likewise, whenever there was an issue that needed to be addressed by the Governor, even within the office or around the capitol compound, but where the Governor was unable to meet with the particular group in question, Gary was always assigned to the case. He would meet with, as he described it, all the different stakeholders. He would get together the legislators, county commissioners, citizens from this or that part of the State, lobbyists, lawyers who may have been involved, in addition to other members of Governor Huntsman's administration. He would bring them all in together, and he would wade through all the intricate and often pedestrian details of the matter. You see, he wanted to get to the bottom of the issue. He wanted to understand it. What is more, he had the skill of figuring out the best path forward for all parties involved and for making everyone feel heard and understood. If ever, whenever, there was a way to achieve a win-win, Gary found it, and he brought people to it, and they were always grateful as a result. The same traits that I saw in him as Lieutenant Governor would go on to make him an effective and beloved Governor himself. In office now as Governor since 2009, Gary Herbert is currently the Nation's longest serving Governor, and our State has seen exciting achievement and tremendous prosperity with Governor Herbert at the helm. In the last 8 years, Utah has seen continued, steady growth in our economy, with improvements in our GDP, number of jobs, and unemployment rate. We have seen the boom of Silicon Slopes. We celebrated the sesquicentennial of the driving of the Golden Spike, when it was an honor to stand alongside Governor and Mrs. Herbert at that celebratory reenactment. On that particular occasion, Governor Herbert and his wife Jeanette showed their characteristic enthusiasm by arriving in their finest 1869 apparel just to commemorate the moment, and it made all the difference. It made it all feel much more authentic. So, too, was it an honor to join Gary when President Trump came to Utah to announce his decision to shrink the Bears Ears National Monument, when we could all stand together and celebrate the fact that someone in Washington had heard our concerns within the State and saw fit to redraw the boundaries in a manner more compatible with local interests and concerns. Through his enthusiasm and his zeal, Gary Herbert has championed our State and the things that we stand for. He has done so very consistently and very enthusiastically. He can rattle off figures and metrics about Utah at the drop of a hat. I am convinced this man can do it in his sleep and do so infectiously and persuasively. And he is a compelling spokesman for our State's values. His spirit has helped Utah to attract talent and investment not only from throughout the United States but from throughout the world and to make it the good place that it is to live. Not only that, but Gary has been an instrumental partner in supporting initiatives that reflect and strengthen the values of our State. To champion the reclamation of our lands, he signed into law the Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act. He also signed into law innovative criminal justice reforms in Utah. He was at the cutting edge of that movement, making a far-reaching impact across our State and that ended up having impacts elsewhere. In fact, his work in Utah in criminal justice reform helped pave the way for the work that Congress and President Trump were able to achieve at the Federal level through the passage of the First Step Act. He has been a strong supporter of Utah's family culture and was helpful in the Senate's work promoting the child tax credit during our tax reform discussions just 3 years ago. On a more personal note, Gary Herbert also had the wisdom to put my brother Tom on the Utah Supreme Court. In so doing, he has been a champion for textualism, the notion that judges are there to interpret the law based on what the law says, rather than on the basis of what it might have said. For all of his public achievements, Gary is perhaps most proud and always most conscious of and most aware of and most concerned about his own role as a husband, as a father, and as a grandfather. Gary and his wife Jeanette have 6 children together, as well as 16 grandchildren, and he is known to encourage them to ``follow in his footsteps and marry up.'' In a myriad of ways, Governor Herbert has been a champion and a spokesman for all that is good about our State. It has been an honor to serve the people of Utah with him, and I wish Governor Herbert and his wife Jeanette all the best as they embark on the next chapter of their lives together. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7990 | null | 2,069 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to honor my friend Gary Herbert, Governor of the State of Utah for the last 12 years, who, after a long career in public service, is now embarking on a really well-deserved, hard-earned retirement. He served the State of Utah and has done so with great enthusiasm and dedication and spirit, and I am grateful to have worked alongside him throughout his tenure serving our great State. Gary Herbert was born in American Fork, UT, and grew up in Orem. He served a 2-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the east coast and later attended Brigham Young University, my alma mater. He first began his public service in college, serving in the Utah Army National Guard for 6 years and eventually becoming a staff sergeant. After his time in the National Guard, he set up a real estate firm and was very successful, eventually becoming the president of the Utah Association of Realtors. He also served as president of the Utah Association of Counties, by the way. Starting in 1990, he served as a commissioner on the Utah County Commission. He served there for 14 years, and it was at that point that he began his statewide service within Utah. You see, in 2004, when Jon Huntsman ran for the Governor's seat, Gary became his running mate, running alongside Huntsman as his Lieutenant Governor, with the pair going on to win the race in November. It was then that I first got to know Gary Herbert personally, when I was hired to be Governor Huntsman's general counsel. One of my first memories of Gary Herbert--which, to me, seems like it was just the day before yesterday--occurred when we all began moving into the Governor's office suite, just the day before Herbert and Huntsman were sworn into office. Gary came in and provided us all with a warm welcome, but he didn't stop at the welcome. He offered really sound and heartfelt advice about the importance of staying grounded as we were entering the political fray. He explained that long after our service and the Huntsman-Herbert administration expired, we want to be able to look back and be pleased about the relationships that we had formed with each other, but especially the relationshipsthat we had maintained with our families, our children, and God. I soon learned that Governor Herbert, in addition to being wise and in addition to being a skilled and valuable statesman, was also a formidable athlete. Right after he and Governor Huntsman were sworn in, the staff got together as a team several times in the Governor's mansion, where we soon discovered there was a ping-pong table in the basement. I then learned the hard way that Governor Herbert's athletic skills, including his ping-pong skills, are off the charts. While severing Governor Huntsman, I always found Gary to be friendly, approachable, and always willing to tackle every single assignment with eagerness and poise. Whenever Governor Huntsman's schedule became chaotic or changed unexpectedly, which happens in any Governor's office or any Senator's office, for that matter, particularly at certain times of the year, Lieutenant Governor Herbert would routinely be dispatched to speak on Huntsman's behalf, often sending him to remote corners of the State and often at really inconvenient times. He never once complained. And he was not only willing, but he was always eager and happy. He felt fortunate for the opportunity to help. That is the kind of enthusiasm that the people of the State of Utah have benefitted from for so long as a result of Gary Herbert's service. You see, he has never lost that--not during his entire time as Lieutenant Governor and not during his entire time as Governor. You can tell that he is exactly where he wants to be and that he feels privileged and he has been blessed to be able to serve the people of Utah. Likewise, whenever there was an issue that needed to be addressed by the Governor, even within the office or around the capitol compound, but where the Governor was unable to meet with the particular group in question, Gary was always assigned to the case. He would meet with, as he described it, all the different stakeholders. He would get together the legislators, county commissioners, citizens from this or that part of the State, lobbyists, lawyers who may have been involved, in addition to other members of Governor Huntsman's administration. He would bring them all in together, and he would wade through all the intricate and often pedestrian details of the matter. You see, he wanted to get to the bottom of the issue. He wanted to understand it. What is more, he had the skill of figuring out the best path forward for all parties involved and for making everyone feel heard and understood. If ever, whenever, there was a way to achieve a win-win, Gary found it, and he brought people to it, and they were always grateful as a result. The same traits that I saw in him as Lieutenant Governor would go on to make him an effective and beloved Governor himself. In office now as Governor since 2009, Gary Herbert is currently the Nation's longest serving Governor, and our State has seen exciting achievement and tremendous prosperity with Governor Herbert at the helm. In the last 8 years, Utah has seen continued, steady growth in our economy, with improvements in our GDP, number of jobs, and unemployment rate. We have seen the boom of Silicon Slopes. We celebrated the sesquicentennial of the driving of the Golden Spike, when it was an honor to stand alongside Governor and Mrs. Herbert at that celebratory reenactment. On that particular occasion, Governor Herbert and his wife Jeanette showed their characteristic enthusiasm by arriving in their finest 1869 apparel just to commemorate the moment, and it made all the difference. It made it all feel much more authentic. So, too, was it an honor to join Gary when President Trump came to Utah to announce his decision to shrink the Bears Ears National Monument, when we could all stand together and celebrate the fact that someone in Washington had heard our concerns within the State and saw fit to redraw the boundaries in a manner more compatible with local interests and concerns. Through his enthusiasm and his zeal, Gary Herbert has championed our State and the things that we stand for. He has done so very consistently and very enthusiastically. He can rattle off figures and metrics about Utah at the drop of a hat. I am convinced this man can do it in his sleep and do so infectiously and persuasively. And he is a compelling spokesman for our State's values. His spirit has helped Utah to attract talent and investment not only from throughout the United States but from throughout the world and to make it the good place that it is to live. Not only that, but Gary has been an instrumental partner in supporting initiatives that reflect and strengthen the values of our State. To champion the reclamation of our lands, he signed into law the Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act. He also signed into law innovative criminal justice reforms in Utah. He was at the cutting edge of that movement, making a far-reaching impact across our State and that ended up having impacts elsewhere. In fact, his work in Utah in criminal justice reform helped pave the way for the work that Congress and President Trump were able to achieve at the Federal level through the passage of the First Step Act. He has been a strong supporter of Utah's family culture and was helpful in the Senate's work promoting the child tax credit during our tax reform discussions just 3 years ago. On a more personal note, Gary Herbert also had the wisdom to put my brother Tom on the Utah Supreme Court. In so doing, he has been a champion for textualism, the notion that judges are there to interpret the law based on what the law says, rather than on the basis of what it might have said. For all of his public achievements, Gary is perhaps most proud and always most conscious of and most aware of and most concerned about his own role as a husband, as a father, and as a grandfather. Gary and his wife Jeanette have 6 children together, as well as 16 grandchildren, and he is known to encourage them to ``follow in his footsteps and marry up.'' In a myriad of ways, Governor Herbert has been a champion and a spokesman for all that is good about our State. It has been an honor to serve the people of Utah with him, and I wish Governor Herbert and his wife Jeanette all the best as they embark on the next chapter of their lives together. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7990 | null | 2,070 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 12:02 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. 371. An act to provide regulatory relief to charitable organizations that provide housing assistance, and for other purposes. S. 1310. An act to strengthen the participation of elected national legislators in the activities of the Organization of American States and reaffirm United States support for Organization of American States human rights and anti- corruption initiatives, and for other purposes. S. 5076. An act to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to delegate authority to approve payroll and personnel actions. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 221) to amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to monitor and combat anti-Semitism globally, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1923) to amend title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue certain circulating collectible coins, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1925) to designate the Manhattan Campus of the New York Harbor Health Care System of the Department of Veterans Affairs as the ``Margaret Cochran Corbin Campus of the New York Harbor Health Care System''. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2744) to authorize the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to prescribe the manner in which programs of the agency are identified overseas, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3153) to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on opioid addiction, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment of the Senate 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. Enrolled Bills Signed The message further announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 4996. An act to ensure funding of the United States trustees, extend temporary bankruptcy judgeships, and for other purposes. H.R. 1418. An act to restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. H.R. 1492. An act to update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for inclusion in, the Yucca House National Monument. H.R. 2502. An act to amend title 40, United States Code, to require certain prospectuses for public buildings to be made publicly available, and for other purposes. H.R. 3250. An act to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the sites associated with the life and legacy of the noted American philanthropist and business executive Julius Rosenwald, with a special focus on the Rosenwald Schools, and for other purposes. H.R. 5126. An act to require individuals fishing for Gulf reef fish to use certain descending devices, and for other purposes. H.R. 5472. An act to redesignate the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site as the ``Jimmy Carter National Historical Park''. The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the Acting President pro tempore (Mrs. Fischer). Enrolled Bills Signed At 3:31 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Connolly) has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 371. An act to provide regulatory relief to charitable organizations that provide housing assistance, and for other purposes. S. 1310. An act to strengthen the participation of elected national legislators in the activities of the Organization of American States and reaffirm United States support for Organization of American States human rights and anti- corruption initiatives, and for other purposes. S. 5076. An act to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to delegate authority to approve payroll and personnel actions. H.R. 221. An act to amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to monitor and combat anti-Semitism globally, and for other purposes. H.R. 1923. An act to amend title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue certain circulating collectible coins, and for other purposes. H.R. 1925. An act to designate the Manhattan Campus of the New York Harbor Health Care System of the Department of Veterans Affairs as the ``Margaret Cochran Corbin Campus of the New York Harbor Health Care System''. H.R. 2744. An act to authorize the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to prescribe the manner in which programs of the agency are identified overseas, and for other purposes. H.R. 3153. An act to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on opioid addiction, and for other purposes. H.R. 4704. An act 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2020-12-31-pt1-PgS7992 | null | 2,071 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me say to my friend, Senator Thune, that I certainly concur with you as to what a pleasure it is to be spending New Year's Day with you and our colleagues. It is exactly what I, I know, and every other Member here wanted to do, but here we are because we have to be here. We are here because, back home in my State and all over this country, millions and millions of families are struggling to put food on the table. They are struggling to pay their rent. They are struggling to come up with the money they need to go to the doctor. This hits me, in a sense, in a personal way. The other day, I received a letter from a colleague of mine in Burlington, VT, where I live--the largest city in the State of Vermont, all of 40,000 people. He wrote to me, reporting on a food drive in Burlington, VT, where I live: Over 30 volunteers showed up to the Champlain School to help bag groceries and to hand them out to those who came out. Unfortunately, there was not nearly enough donated food to provide a bag to everyone who showed up despite us planning on an increased need. The line of cars filled the parking lot, wrapped around the school, and went out onto the main road for half a mile. This represented a major up-tick for the October event that we were involved in. This was in Burlington, VT, with hundreds of cars lining up for emergency food and the volunteers not having enough food to distribute. They had to say to the families who were trying to feed their kids: Sorry. We do not have enough food. So what we are doing today is very simple, and that is that Senator Thune, Senator McConnell, and others have raised objection to the House-passed bill. In the U.S. Senate, when we have differences of opinion, what we should be doing is debating that bill. So all that Senator Schumer is asking and all that I am asking is simple: Bring the bill to the floor. We are not even asking you to vote for it. Bring the bill to the floor. On top of everything else, we need 60 votes to pass it--60 votes. Can we get 60 votes? I don't know. I think virtually all of the 48 Democrats will vote for it. It means, Senator Thune, that we need 12 Republicans. I gather we have one right here who indicated he would vote for it, and five or six others have been public about saying they will vote for it. Will we get the rest? I don't know. You don't know. What is the problem with giving Members of the U.S. Senate the opportunity to vote on the legislation? When we have that debate, you can come up and raise all of your objections, and we can debate it. Now, I heard Senator Thune and Senator McConnell before him talk about this bill being socialism for the rich, which I have to tell you I find somewhat hysterical because that is an issue I have been talking about for many, many years. I am very delighted that my conservative Republican friends now recognize that we do have socialism for the rich. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he said we live in a society where we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor. King was right. Despite what my Republican colleagues are saying, the truth is that, according to the Tax Policy Center, the top 5 percent of Americans--the wealthiest people in our country--would receive less than 1 percent of the benefits of these direct payments--less than 1 percent. It doesn't sound, to me, like too much socialism for the rich. While we are on the subject of socialism for the rich, which my Republican friends have suddenly become very concerned about, let me talk about the Trump tax proposal that was pushed very hard by Senator McConnell and the Republican leadership and that, I think, every Republican voted for. Do you want to talk about socialism for the rich? It is not the bill that puts $2,000 into working-class hands all over this country. That isn't socialism for the rich. This is socialism for the rich. In that bill, Amazon--oh, by the way, I must say this, if I may: We were quoting the liberal Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos--the wealthiest guy in the world. So here is Jeff Bezos' company, Amazon, and they received a tax rebate. They paid nothing in 2018 in Federal taxes. That is a corrupt tax system to begin with, but then, on top of that, they received $129 million as a tax rebate. That, Senator Thune, is socialism for the rich. In fact, this particular company is owned by the richest guy in the world, and you gave him a $129 million rebate, but it is not just Amazon. Delta Air Lines also paid nothing in Federal taxes in 2018; yet they received a $187 million rebate from that particular bill. Chevron, in helping to destroy our planet with their carbon emissions, received $181 million in a rebate. That, my friends, is what socialism for the rich is about. Socialism for the rich is not--in the midst of this terrible pandemic--putting $2,000 checks into the hands of working families. The truth of the matter is, as a result of this pandemic, we are living through the worst and most difficult economic period since the Great Depression. Tens of millions of families are facing eviction all over this country--in the wealthiest Nation on Earth. Moms are struggling to feed their kids, keep the electricity on, and be able to go to the doctor. Now, I hear from my Republican friends that the economy is doing better, but I would like to just read to them a few of the stories that I have received in my office. We asked people a simple question: How are you doing out there, and what is going on in your lives? We received many, many thousands of responses from people in every State in this country. I will read a few just to bring some dose of reality here to the U.S. Senate, which often, in the midst of all of the campaign contributions coming in from the rich, does not know what is going on in the real world. Here is the real world. A gentleman in Texas wrote: $2,000 is the difference between keeping our apartment and being evicted. A mother in Virginia wrote: $2,000 means I can afford to feed my three kids. Now, maybe we should give her a long lecture on macroeconomics and how well the stock market is doing, but all she is worried about is feeding her three children. A woman in Wisconsin wrote: $2,000 would mean not having to choose between rent and groceries and not having to ration my partner's meds. A woman in Nevada wrote: [It means] paying my rent and getting lifesaving treatment because I can't afford the $50 co-pay through my work insurance just to see my neurologist right now. A father in Florida wrote: It would mean I could pay my bills. My electricity and phone are about to get shut off. I didn't have money for my son on Christmas, and I won't have money for his birthday on January 2. A father in New Jersey wrote: It would mean I could pay off credit card debt accumulated during this pandemic, feed my children, and pay my bills. A parent in Massachusetts wrote: It would mean that I could pay my rent and electricity and put food on the table. A woman in Missouri wrote: It would mean getting out of crushing debt. It would mean survival without daily fear. Someone in Texas wrote: It would mean I could actually put food in the fridge. A man in Maryland wrote: It would mean I don't have to beg or go without food, shelter, and medicine. It would mean my family stays warm another couple of months and my dad gets proper treatment. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS7997 | null | 2,072 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the time has come to declare victory and come home from the war in Afghanistan--the longest war in the history of our country. Over 4,000 Americans have died fighting in Afghanistan, and over 20,000 have been wounded. It is time to bring our soldiers home. After the 9/11 attacks, I supported going into Afghanistan. We were absolutely justified in rooting out the Taliban who harbored al-Qaida. Had I been in Congress at that time, I would have voted in favor of going into Afghanistan. But the people who attacked us on 9/11 have all been killed or captured. They are long gone. But we are still there. Most of the people fighting us in Afghanistan today are the successors or children or the children of their children. The cycle shows no sign of ending. The war shows no sign of ending. It is not sustainable to keep fighting in Afghanistan generation after generation. Here is some perspective: We have been fighting in Afghanistan for so long that when the 9/11 attacks happened, our youngest soldiers fighting there today weren't even born yet. American fathers who fought in Afghanistan are now watching as their sons fight in Afghanistan. We have spent about $1 trillion to establish an Afghan government--a government that is rife with corruption and dysfunction. It is a government that cannot perform much of any government function on its own. So we spend more to do for them what they still cannot do for themselves. A trillion dollars and we have hardly progressed from where we started. Yet instead of outrage--which is how most Americans feel--the reaction from Congress is, gosh, maybe let's spend a trillion more. After World War II, much of Europe was reduced to rubble. It was utterly destroyed. So we rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan. We have now spent many times more to rebuild Afghanistan than we did under the Marshall Plan. What has that money gotten us? We have built infrastructure in Afghanistan and then watched it deteriorate and watched the Afghans be unable to even maintain the infrastructure we built for them, and then they ask us for more money to maintain the structure. So we rebuild the infrastructure we just built for them. Meanwhile, our roads and our bridges here at home crumble as we spend millions upon millions to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan. I want to walk through some examples of how our money has been used in Afghanistan. Several years ago, we reportedly hired a local security consultant to help secure road construction projects, at a cost of $1 million per year. But according to the report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, American officials came to suspect that the money was being funneled to insurgents to stage attacks on our infrastructure, which could be used to justify the security contract. So our money was going to a guy who was apparently paying insurgents to stage attacks against him so he could justify his security contract. It is crazy. We spent $43 million on a natural gas, gas station. Guess how many vehicles in Afghanistan run on natural gas. Zero. You can't even find the gas station. My staff actually went there to see how the money had been spent, and they were told they couldn't go there because it was too unsafe. Now the report is that the gas station has been abandoned--and with it $43 million flushed away. We spent nearly $80 million on a luxury hotel. Why is the American taxpayer building luxury hotels in Kabul? Guess what. It was abandoned halfway through. It is a skeleton. The Taliban are now said to climb up into the structure and shoot down at our Embassy. We spent about $400 million on equipment and other things to create an Afghan Army Corps of Engineers. Exceptall the equipment we bought was lost. Gone. We spent hundreds of millions on electrification projects in Afghanistan, but the system wasn't working. Afghans didn't understand that you had to pay for electricity and that you couldn't climb up utility poles. So, we spent almost $2 million on a public awareness campaign to tell Afghans that they did, in fact, have to pay for electricity and to please stop climbing on the electrical wires. There was a multimillion-dollar highway project that also required $32 million in community outreach. This is basically an attempt to help locals understand what is happening, since they have no experience with a giant highway or what it is for. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction examined this ``community outreach'' and found that one Regional Coordinator was given cash--$75,000--to help with outreach with locals, but SIGAR found that they could not account for the $75,000 which had been filed as used for ``goat distribution.'' Now, I don't know a lot about goats, but that seems like a lot of ``goat'' money. The guy giving out the goat money mysteriously disappeared. The inspector general reports that the money is unrecoverable. My subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Afghan war spending, and Ambassador Boucher, one of the witnesses, recounted that the Afghan Finance Minister told him 80 to 90 percent of the money Congress approves disappears before it gets to Afghanistan. It is not just corruption. He said: You know, we hire a contractor who hires a subcontractor, who hires a bunch of consultants, who hires a bunch of security personnel, who flies in airplanes, etc. And by the time you get somebody on the ground in Afghanistan receiving a benefit, it is a very small portion of all those billions and billions of dollars that Congress allocated for whatever that purpose was. We continue to pour good money after bad into Afghanistan, hoping that the outcome will somehow change, hoping that maybe the next 20 years will produce better results than the last 20 years did. The American people say ``Come home,'' and now is the time. A Pew poll from last year found that 59 percent of Americans--and 58 percent of veterans--thought the Afghanistan war has not been worth fighting. One poll from this year shows far more Americans support withdrawal from Afghanistan than support continuing the war, and almost three-quarters of veterans support ending the war. We should be listening to those who have been on the ground in Afghanistan. There are so many veterans who have witnessed firsthand the rudderless direction of the war. We should listen to Army combat medic Shane Reynolds, who served in Iraq: ``For all of us that went over there and worked so hard, and put our families through so much, and there was never a strategy. We were just going through motions, chasing ghosts through mountains . . . We felt that there was no plan, there was no strategy and there was no will to change anything about that.'' Maybe the Senate should listen to Infantryman Jay O'Brien, who served in Kandahar: ``Now I realize that no one above us knew what the hell was going on either. It's systemic willful ignorance all the way up to the top.'' Army Intelligence Officer Gregg Frostrom, who served four deployments overseas over an 11-year period, captures the perspective of those who served: ``There's a lot of feeling like you're Sisyphus, like you're just pushing the rock up the hill, and you go home for six months, and you come back and the rock's at the bottom of the hill and you're like, well, now I've got to start pushing it again.'' President Trump ran for the President promising to end these forever wars. The American people want to end the Afghanistan war. Yet the establishment powers in Washington and Congress have fought him at every turn. This bill explicitly tries to tie the hands of all Presidents and make it difficult if not impossible to declare victory and come home. Not only does this bill make it harder for any President to end a war, we already have high-ranking officials of our government directly defying the President's orders to deescalate war. Take Syria for example. President Trump ordered troop levels to decline from around 2,000 to approximately 200. Former Ambassador Jim Jeffrey not only defied this order, he lampooned it later by saying, ``What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal.'' According to Defense One, ``outgoing Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, the U.S. special envoy for Syria acknowledges that he routinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.'' Jeffrey's admitted to ``playing shell games'' to obscure from the President and his generals how many troops were really left in Syria. In reality, Trump's order to reduce the troops was countermanded by an unelected bureaucrat. As Becket Adams explains, ``Obscure federal workers have reportedly been in control of the U.S. military presence in northern Syria, and all in direct violation of explicit orders from the President.'' Adams continues: ``Nothing to worry about here, folks. Just some nameless federal drones allegedly misleading the commander of the U.S. military in order to keep troops stationed overseas in conflicts that said drones believe are necessary and winnable. People laugh when they hear the term ``deep state,'' but it is no joke.'' President Trump has ordered troop levels to be reduced in Afghanistan, so Congress responded by passing an NDAA which actually restricts his ability to withdraw troops. That is right. Congress, which has spent decades lecturing any and every one that we don't need 535 generals and that there is only one Commander in Chief who has absolute powers to wage war however he sees fit, has now reversed course and decided that we actually do need 535 generals in order to stop the Commander in Chief from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. President Trump vetoed that NDAA, and now we are here today in an attempt to override that veto, to add a 20th year to this war. This is a mistake. But Congress has had it wrong for a long time, so this is nothing new. They just passed a $1.4 trillion omnibus bill that no one saw until hours before it was to be voted on, and they paired it with a $900 billion coronavirus bailout, paid for with money borrowed from our children. We are told all the time that there is simply no more fat left to cut in the budget, that we have to borrow because we can't cut our high priorities. What are those high priorities, you may ask? Let's start with a look at this bill that just passed. There is $25 million for Pakistan in there. Pakistan puts Christians on death row when they are accused of blasphemy, except that allegations of blasphemy are often based on petty disputes among neighbors or coworkers. There are reportedly 80 people on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy-related charges. There is $700 million for Sudan in the bill, where freedom of expression is restricted. There is another $500 million to address the root causes of migration from Central America. I doubt the report mentions the allure of all the free stuff you can get after you break in to America. How about $575 million for ``family planning'' in the third world? How many businesses, struggling to make payroll because their Governor closed them down, could have used that $575 million? Congress is borrowing a trillion dollars a year so that they can keep spending money on these kinds of things. They don't want to set priorities. This is hardly new. I have been watching this for years and called out the big spenders in Congress for approving: $250,000 to send kids from Pakistan to Space Camp in Alabama and Dollywood in Tennessee; $1.8 million to improve the international perception of Afghan artisans and craftsman; $10,000 to improve Pakistan's film industry. Really? U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize Pakistan's version of Hollywood; a $2 million venture capital fund in Bosnia for businesses that couldn't get their own financing; almost $8 million for foreign dance residencies. Really? Ballet for Bolivia; more than $9 million to ease medicaldebt in Cambodia. What about Americans' with medical debt; more than $23 million to help college graduates in Morocco find jobs. How about college grads in Kentucky; $273 million in grants to help people learn how to apply for grants. Really? U.S. taxpayers are being fleeced to teach people how to get more of our money; $20 million to teach Laotians how to speak Laotian. Makes me want to utter Laotian profanities. But I will likely need a government grant in order to learn to swear in Laotian; $1 million to produce a comedic variety TV show in Afghanistan. I don't know about you but I don't find that funny at all; almost $15 million to produce foreign versions of ``Sesame Street'' that would teach children in other countries about climate change. Next year, I am sure the taxpayer will be sending Muppets in Masks to Madagascar; and $153 million in development assistance that included subsidies for low-income mortgages in Nigeria. So Americans are losing their homes, but Congress has already spent the money buying Nigerian mortgages. Americans are losing their livelihoods, but Congress has already spent the money on economic support funds in places like Bosnia. American infrastructure is crumbling, but Congress spends billions on roads in Afghanistan. We could have rebuilt the Brent-Spence Bridge in my State, which has been a priority for some time, but Congress can't stop spending the money overseas. Again, the war in Afghanistan costs $50 billion per year. Our mission is complete. Al-Qaida is diminished. Osama bin Laden is dead. It is time to declare victory. The American people want the war to end. So many of our veterans want the war to end. The President is trying to bring it to an end. But Congress is standing in the way. Today we have the chance to act as the people's representatives instead of acting like 535 generals. We should not override the veto. We should remove the language that tries to block the President's drawdown of troops. I urge a vote against the veto override. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS8002-2 | null | 2,073 |
formal | deep state | null | antisemitic | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the time has come to declare victory and come home from the war in Afghanistan--the longest war in the history of our country. Over 4,000 Americans have died fighting in Afghanistan, and over 20,000 have been wounded. It is time to bring our soldiers home. After the 9/11 attacks, I supported going into Afghanistan. We were absolutely justified in rooting out the Taliban who harbored al-Qaida. Had I been in Congress at that time, I would have voted in favor of going into Afghanistan. But the people who attacked us on 9/11 have all been killed or captured. They are long gone. But we are still there. Most of the people fighting us in Afghanistan today are the successors or children or the children of their children. The cycle shows no sign of ending. The war shows no sign of ending. It is not sustainable to keep fighting in Afghanistan generation after generation. Here is some perspective: We have been fighting in Afghanistan for so long that when the 9/11 attacks happened, our youngest soldiers fighting there today weren't even born yet. American fathers who fought in Afghanistan are now watching as their sons fight in Afghanistan. We have spent about $1 trillion to establish an Afghan government--a government that is rife with corruption and dysfunction. It is a government that cannot perform much of any government function on its own. So we spend more to do for them what they still cannot do for themselves. A trillion dollars and we have hardly progressed from where we started. Yet instead of outrage--which is how most Americans feel--the reaction from Congress is, gosh, maybe let's spend a trillion more. After World War II, much of Europe was reduced to rubble. It was utterly destroyed. So we rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan. We have now spent many times more to rebuild Afghanistan than we did under the Marshall Plan. What has that money gotten us? We have built infrastructure in Afghanistan and then watched it deteriorate and watched the Afghans be unable to even maintain the infrastructure we built for them, and then they ask us for more money to maintain the structure. So we rebuild the infrastructure we just built for them. Meanwhile, our roads and our bridges here at home crumble as we spend millions upon millions to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan. I want to walk through some examples of how our money has been used in Afghanistan. Several years ago, we reportedly hired a local security consultant to help secure road construction projects, at a cost of $1 million per year. But according to the report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, American officials came to suspect that the money was being funneled to insurgents to stage attacks on our infrastructure, which could be used to justify the security contract. So our money was going to a guy who was apparently paying insurgents to stage attacks against him so he could justify his security contract. It is crazy. We spent $43 million on a natural gas, gas station. Guess how many vehicles in Afghanistan run on natural gas. Zero. You can't even find the gas station. My staff actually went there to see how the money had been spent, and they were told they couldn't go there because it was too unsafe. Now the report is that the gas station has been abandoned--and with it $43 million flushed away. We spent nearly $80 million on a luxury hotel. Why is the American taxpayer building luxury hotels in Kabul? Guess what. It was abandoned halfway through. It is a skeleton. The Taliban are now said to climb up into the structure and shoot down at our Embassy. We spent about $400 million on equipment and other things to create an Afghan Army Corps of Engineers. Exceptall the equipment we bought was lost. Gone. We spent hundreds of millions on electrification projects in Afghanistan, but the system wasn't working. Afghans didn't understand that you had to pay for electricity and that you couldn't climb up utility poles. So, we spent almost $2 million on a public awareness campaign to tell Afghans that they did, in fact, have to pay for electricity and to please stop climbing on the electrical wires. There was a multimillion-dollar highway project that also required $32 million in community outreach. This is basically an attempt to help locals understand what is happening, since they have no experience with a giant highway or what it is for. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction examined this ``community outreach'' and found that one Regional Coordinator was given cash--$75,000--to help with outreach with locals, but SIGAR found that they could not account for the $75,000 which had been filed as used for ``goat distribution.'' Now, I don't know a lot about goats, but that seems like a lot of ``goat'' money. The guy giving out the goat money mysteriously disappeared. The inspector general reports that the money is unrecoverable. My subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Afghan war spending, and Ambassador Boucher, one of the witnesses, recounted that the Afghan Finance Minister told him 80 to 90 percent of the money Congress approves disappears before it gets to Afghanistan. It is not just corruption. He said: You know, we hire a contractor who hires a subcontractor, who hires a bunch of consultants, who hires a bunch of security personnel, who flies in airplanes, etc. And by the time you get somebody on the ground in Afghanistan receiving a benefit, it is a very small portion of all those billions and billions of dollars that Congress allocated for whatever that purpose was. We continue to pour good money after bad into Afghanistan, hoping that the outcome will somehow change, hoping that maybe the next 20 years will produce better results than the last 20 years did. The American people say ``Come home,'' and now is the time. A Pew poll from last year found that 59 percent of Americans--and 58 percent of veterans--thought the Afghanistan war has not been worth fighting. One poll from this year shows far more Americans support withdrawal from Afghanistan than support continuing the war, and almost three-quarters of veterans support ending the war. We should be listening to those who have been on the ground in Afghanistan. There are so many veterans who have witnessed firsthand the rudderless direction of the war. We should listen to Army combat medic Shane Reynolds, who served in Iraq: ``For all of us that went over there and worked so hard, and put our families through so much, and there was never a strategy. We were just going through motions, chasing ghosts through mountains . . . We felt that there was no plan, there was no strategy and there was no will to change anything about that.'' Maybe the Senate should listen to Infantryman Jay O'Brien, who served in Kandahar: ``Now I realize that no one above us knew what the hell was going on either. It's systemic willful ignorance all the way up to the top.'' Army Intelligence Officer Gregg Frostrom, who served four deployments overseas over an 11-year period, captures the perspective of those who served: ``There's a lot of feeling like you're Sisyphus, like you're just pushing the rock up the hill, and you go home for six months, and you come back and the rock's at the bottom of the hill and you're like, well, now I've got to start pushing it again.'' President Trump ran for the President promising to end these forever wars. The American people want to end the Afghanistan war. Yet the establishment powers in Washington and Congress have fought him at every turn. This bill explicitly tries to tie the hands of all Presidents and make it difficult if not impossible to declare victory and come home. Not only does this bill make it harder for any President to end a war, we already have high-ranking officials of our government directly defying the President's orders to deescalate war. Take Syria for example. President Trump ordered troop levels to decline from around 2,000 to approximately 200. Former Ambassador Jim Jeffrey not only defied this order, he lampooned it later by saying, ``What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal.'' According to Defense One, ``outgoing Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, the U.S. special envoy for Syria acknowledges that he routinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.'' Jeffrey's admitted to ``playing shell games'' to obscure from the President and his generals how many troops were really left in Syria. In reality, Trump's order to reduce the troops was countermanded by an unelected bureaucrat. As Becket Adams explains, ``Obscure federal workers have reportedly been in control of the U.S. military presence in northern Syria, and all in direct violation of explicit orders from the President.'' Adams continues: ``Nothing to worry about here, folks. Just some nameless federal drones allegedly misleading the commander of the U.S. military in order to keep troops stationed overseas in conflicts that said drones believe are necessary and winnable. People laugh when they hear the term ``deep state,'' but it is no joke.'' President Trump has ordered troop levels to be reduced in Afghanistan, so Congress responded by passing an NDAA which actually restricts his ability to withdraw troops. That is right. Congress, which has spent decades lecturing any and every one that we don't need 535 generals and that there is only one Commander in Chief who has absolute powers to wage war however he sees fit, has now reversed course and decided that we actually do need 535 generals in order to stop the Commander in Chief from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. President Trump vetoed that NDAA, and now we are here today in an attempt to override that veto, to add a 20th year to this war. This is a mistake. But Congress has had it wrong for a long time, so this is nothing new. They just passed a $1.4 trillion omnibus bill that no one saw until hours before it was to be voted on, and they paired it with a $900 billion coronavirus bailout, paid for with money borrowed from our children. We are told all the time that there is simply no more fat left to cut in the budget, that we have to borrow because we can't cut our high priorities. What are those high priorities, you may ask? Let's start with a look at this bill that just passed. There is $25 million for Pakistan in there. Pakistan puts Christians on death row when they are accused of blasphemy, except that allegations of blasphemy are often based on petty disputes among neighbors or coworkers. There are reportedly 80 people on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy-related charges. There is $700 million for Sudan in the bill, where freedom of expression is restricted. There is another $500 million to address the root causes of migration from Central America. I doubt the report mentions the allure of all the free stuff you can get after you break in to America. How about $575 million for ``family planning'' in the third world? How many businesses, struggling to make payroll because their Governor closed them down, could have used that $575 million? Congress is borrowing a trillion dollars a year so that they can keep spending money on these kinds of things. They don't want to set priorities. This is hardly new. I have been watching this for years and called out the big spenders in Congress for approving: $250,000 to send kids from Pakistan to Space Camp in Alabama and Dollywood in Tennessee; $1.8 million to improve the international perception of Afghan artisans and craftsman; $10,000 to improve Pakistan's film industry. Really? U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize Pakistan's version of Hollywood; a $2 million venture capital fund in Bosnia for businesses that couldn't get their own financing; almost $8 million for foreign dance residencies. Really? Ballet for Bolivia; more than $9 million to ease medicaldebt in Cambodia. What about Americans' with medical debt; more than $23 million to help college graduates in Morocco find jobs. How about college grads in Kentucky; $273 million in grants to help people learn how to apply for grants. Really? U.S. taxpayers are being fleeced to teach people how to get more of our money; $20 million to teach Laotians how to speak Laotian. Makes me want to utter Laotian profanities. But I will likely need a government grant in order to learn to swear in Laotian; $1 million to produce a comedic variety TV show in Afghanistan. I don't know about you but I don't find that funny at all; almost $15 million to produce foreign versions of ``Sesame Street'' that would teach children in other countries about climate change. Next year, I am sure the taxpayer will be sending Muppets in Masks to Madagascar; and $153 million in development assistance that included subsidies for low-income mortgages in Nigeria. So Americans are losing their homes, but Congress has already spent the money buying Nigerian mortgages. Americans are losing their livelihoods, but Congress has already spent the money on economic support funds in places like Bosnia. American infrastructure is crumbling, but Congress spends billions on roads in Afghanistan. We could have rebuilt the Brent-Spence Bridge in my State, which has been a priority for some time, but Congress can't stop spending the money overseas. Again, the war in Afghanistan costs $50 billion per year. Our mission is complete. Al-Qaida is diminished. Osama bin Laden is dead. It is time to declare victory. The American people want the war to end. So many of our veterans want the war to end. The President is trying to bring it to an end. But Congress is standing in the way. Today we have the chance to act as the people's representatives instead of acting like 535 generals. We should not override the veto. We should remove the language that tries to block the President's drawdown of troops. I urge a vote against the veto override. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS8002-2 | null | 2,074 |
formal | Hollywood | null | antisemitic | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the time has come to declare victory and come home from the war in Afghanistan--the longest war in the history of our country. Over 4,000 Americans have died fighting in Afghanistan, and over 20,000 have been wounded. It is time to bring our soldiers home. After the 9/11 attacks, I supported going into Afghanistan. We were absolutely justified in rooting out the Taliban who harbored al-Qaida. Had I been in Congress at that time, I would have voted in favor of going into Afghanistan. But the people who attacked us on 9/11 have all been killed or captured. They are long gone. But we are still there. Most of the people fighting us in Afghanistan today are the successors or children or the children of their children. The cycle shows no sign of ending. The war shows no sign of ending. It is not sustainable to keep fighting in Afghanistan generation after generation. Here is some perspective: We have been fighting in Afghanistan for so long that when the 9/11 attacks happened, our youngest soldiers fighting there today weren't even born yet. American fathers who fought in Afghanistan are now watching as their sons fight in Afghanistan. We have spent about $1 trillion to establish an Afghan government--a government that is rife with corruption and dysfunction. It is a government that cannot perform much of any government function on its own. So we spend more to do for them what they still cannot do for themselves. A trillion dollars and we have hardly progressed from where we started. Yet instead of outrage--which is how most Americans feel--the reaction from Congress is, gosh, maybe let's spend a trillion more. After World War II, much of Europe was reduced to rubble. It was utterly destroyed. So we rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan. We have now spent many times more to rebuild Afghanistan than we did under the Marshall Plan. What has that money gotten us? We have built infrastructure in Afghanistan and then watched it deteriorate and watched the Afghans be unable to even maintain the infrastructure we built for them, and then they ask us for more money to maintain the structure. So we rebuild the infrastructure we just built for them. Meanwhile, our roads and our bridges here at home crumble as we spend millions upon millions to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan. I want to walk through some examples of how our money has been used in Afghanistan. Several years ago, we reportedly hired a local security consultant to help secure road construction projects, at a cost of $1 million per year. But according to the report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, American officials came to suspect that the money was being funneled to insurgents to stage attacks on our infrastructure, which could be used to justify the security contract. So our money was going to a guy who was apparently paying insurgents to stage attacks against him so he could justify his security contract. It is crazy. We spent $43 million on a natural gas, gas station. Guess how many vehicles in Afghanistan run on natural gas. Zero. You can't even find the gas station. My staff actually went there to see how the money had been spent, and they were told they couldn't go there because it was too unsafe. Now the report is that the gas station has been abandoned--and with it $43 million flushed away. We spent nearly $80 million on a luxury hotel. Why is the American taxpayer building luxury hotels in Kabul? Guess what. It was abandoned halfway through. It is a skeleton. The Taliban are now said to climb up into the structure and shoot down at our Embassy. We spent about $400 million on equipment and other things to create an Afghan Army Corps of Engineers. Exceptall the equipment we bought was lost. Gone. We spent hundreds of millions on electrification projects in Afghanistan, but the system wasn't working. Afghans didn't understand that you had to pay for electricity and that you couldn't climb up utility poles. So, we spent almost $2 million on a public awareness campaign to tell Afghans that they did, in fact, have to pay for electricity and to please stop climbing on the electrical wires. There was a multimillion-dollar highway project that also required $32 million in community outreach. This is basically an attempt to help locals understand what is happening, since they have no experience with a giant highway or what it is for. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction examined this ``community outreach'' and found that one Regional Coordinator was given cash--$75,000--to help with outreach with locals, but SIGAR found that they could not account for the $75,000 which had been filed as used for ``goat distribution.'' Now, I don't know a lot about goats, but that seems like a lot of ``goat'' money. The guy giving out the goat money mysteriously disappeared. The inspector general reports that the money is unrecoverable. My subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Afghan war spending, and Ambassador Boucher, one of the witnesses, recounted that the Afghan Finance Minister told him 80 to 90 percent of the money Congress approves disappears before it gets to Afghanistan. It is not just corruption. He said: You know, we hire a contractor who hires a subcontractor, who hires a bunch of consultants, who hires a bunch of security personnel, who flies in airplanes, etc. And by the time you get somebody on the ground in Afghanistan receiving a benefit, it is a very small portion of all those billions and billions of dollars that Congress allocated for whatever that purpose was. We continue to pour good money after bad into Afghanistan, hoping that the outcome will somehow change, hoping that maybe the next 20 years will produce better results than the last 20 years did. The American people say ``Come home,'' and now is the time. A Pew poll from last year found that 59 percent of Americans--and 58 percent of veterans--thought the Afghanistan war has not been worth fighting. One poll from this year shows far more Americans support withdrawal from Afghanistan than support continuing the war, and almost three-quarters of veterans support ending the war. We should be listening to those who have been on the ground in Afghanistan. There are so many veterans who have witnessed firsthand the rudderless direction of the war. We should listen to Army combat medic Shane Reynolds, who served in Iraq: ``For all of us that went over there and worked so hard, and put our families through so much, and there was never a strategy. We were just going through motions, chasing ghosts through mountains . . . We felt that there was no plan, there was no strategy and there was no will to change anything about that.'' Maybe the Senate should listen to Infantryman Jay O'Brien, who served in Kandahar: ``Now I realize that no one above us knew what the hell was going on either. It's systemic willful ignorance all the way up to the top.'' Army Intelligence Officer Gregg Frostrom, who served four deployments overseas over an 11-year period, captures the perspective of those who served: ``There's a lot of feeling like you're Sisyphus, like you're just pushing the rock up the hill, and you go home for six months, and you come back and the rock's at the bottom of the hill and you're like, well, now I've got to start pushing it again.'' President Trump ran for the President promising to end these forever wars. The American people want to end the Afghanistan war. Yet the establishment powers in Washington and Congress have fought him at every turn. This bill explicitly tries to tie the hands of all Presidents and make it difficult if not impossible to declare victory and come home. Not only does this bill make it harder for any President to end a war, we already have high-ranking officials of our government directly defying the President's orders to deescalate war. Take Syria for example. President Trump ordered troop levels to decline from around 2,000 to approximately 200. Former Ambassador Jim Jeffrey not only defied this order, he lampooned it later by saying, ``What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal.'' According to Defense One, ``outgoing Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, the U.S. special envoy for Syria acknowledges that he routinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.'' Jeffrey's admitted to ``playing shell games'' to obscure from the President and his generals how many troops were really left in Syria. In reality, Trump's order to reduce the troops was countermanded by an unelected bureaucrat. As Becket Adams explains, ``Obscure federal workers have reportedly been in control of the U.S. military presence in northern Syria, and all in direct violation of explicit orders from the President.'' Adams continues: ``Nothing to worry about here, folks. Just some nameless federal drones allegedly misleading the commander of the U.S. military in order to keep troops stationed overseas in conflicts that said drones believe are necessary and winnable. People laugh when they hear the term ``deep state,'' but it is no joke.'' President Trump has ordered troop levels to be reduced in Afghanistan, so Congress responded by passing an NDAA which actually restricts his ability to withdraw troops. That is right. Congress, which has spent decades lecturing any and every one that we don't need 535 generals and that there is only one Commander in Chief who has absolute powers to wage war however he sees fit, has now reversed course and decided that we actually do need 535 generals in order to stop the Commander in Chief from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. President Trump vetoed that NDAA, and now we are here today in an attempt to override that veto, to add a 20th year to this war. This is a mistake. But Congress has had it wrong for a long time, so this is nothing new. They just passed a $1.4 trillion omnibus bill that no one saw until hours before it was to be voted on, and they paired it with a $900 billion coronavirus bailout, paid for with money borrowed from our children. We are told all the time that there is simply no more fat left to cut in the budget, that we have to borrow because we can't cut our high priorities. What are those high priorities, you may ask? Let's start with a look at this bill that just passed. There is $25 million for Pakistan in there. Pakistan puts Christians on death row when they are accused of blasphemy, except that allegations of blasphemy are often based on petty disputes among neighbors or coworkers. There are reportedly 80 people on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy-related charges. There is $700 million for Sudan in the bill, where freedom of expression is restricted. There is another $500 million to address the root causes of migration from Central America. I doubt the report mentions the allure of all the free stuff you can get after you break in to America. How about $575 million for ``family planning'' in the third world? How many businesses, struggling to make payroll because their Governor closed them down, could have used that $575 million? Congress is borrowing a trillion dollars a year so that they can keep spending money on these kinds of things. They don't want to set priorities. This is hardly new. I have been watching this for years and called out the big spenders in Congress for approving: $250,000 to send kids from Pakistan to Space Camp in Alabama and Dollywood in Tennessee; $1.8 million to improve the international perception of Afghan artisans and craftsman; $10,000 to improve Pakistan's film industry. Really? U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize Pakistan's version of Hollywood; a $2 million venture capital fund in Bosnia for businesses that couldn't get their own financing; almost $8 million for foreign dance residencies. Really? Ballet for Bolivia; more than $9 million to ease medicaldebt in Cambodia. What about Americans' with medical debt; more than $23 million to help college graduates in Morocco find jobs. How about college grads in Kentucky; $273 million in grants to help people learn how to apply for grants. Really? U.S. taxpayers are being fleeced to teach people how to get more of our money; $20 million to teach Laotians how to speak Laotian. Makes me want to utter Laotian profanities. But I will likely need a government grant in order to learn to swear in Laotian; $1 million to produce a comedic variety TV show in Afghanistan. I don't know about you but I don't find that funny at all; almost $15 million to produce foreign versions of ``Sesame Street'' that would teach children in other countries about climate change. Next year, I am sure the taxpayer will be sending Muppets in Masks to Madagascar; and $153 million in development assistance that included subsidies for low-income mortgages in Nigeria. So Americans are losing their homes, but Congress has already spent the money buying Nigerian mortgages. Americans are losing their livelihoods, but Congress has already spent the money on economic support funds in places like Bosnia. American infrastructure is crumbling, but Congress spends billions on roads in Afghanistan. We could have rebuilt the Brent-Spence Bridge in my State, which has been a priority for some time, but Congress can't stop spending the money overseas. Again, the war in Afghanistan costs $50 billion per year. Our mission is complete. Al-Qaida is diminished. Osama bin Laden is dead. It is time to declare victory. The American people want the war to end. So many of our veterans want the war to end. The President is trying to bring it to an end. But Congress is standing in the way. Today we have the chance to act as the people's representatives instead of acting like 535 generals. We should not override the veto. We should remove the language that tries to block the President's drawdown of troops. I urge a vote against the veto override. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS8002-2 | null | 2,075 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | enrolled bills signed At 12:02 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Connolly) has signed the following enrolled bills: H.R. 1472. An act to rename the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, Nebraska, as the Homestead National Historical Park. H.R. 4044. An act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes. The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley). enrolled bills signed The President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley) announced that on today, January 1, 2021, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker pro tempore of the House (Mr. Connolly): S. 371. An act to provide regulatory relief to charitable organizations that provide housing assistance, and for other purposes. S. 1310. An act to strengthen the participation of elected national legislators in the activities of the Organization of American States and reaffirm United States support for Organization of American States human rights and anti- corruption initiatives, and for other purposes. S. 5076. An act to authorize the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to delegate authority to approve payroll and personnel. H.R. 221. An act to amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to monitor and combat anti-Semitism globally, and for other purposes. H.R. 1923. An act to amend title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue certain circulating collectible coins, and for other purposes. H.R. 1925. An act to designate the Manhattan Campus of the New York Harbor Health Care System of the Department of Veterans Affairs as the ``Margaret Cochran Corbin Campus of the New York Harbor Health Care System''. H.R. 2744. An act to authorize the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to prescribe the manner in which programs of the agency are identified overseas, and for other purposes. H.R. 3153. An act to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on opioid addiction, and for other purposes. H.R. 4704. An act 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS8005 | null | 2,076 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | SA 2736. Mr. BOOZMAN (for Mr. Risch) proposed an amendment to the resolution S. Res. 684, calling on the Government of Cameroon and separatist armed groups from the English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions to end all violence, respect the human rights of all Cameroonians, and pursue a genuinely inclusive dialogue toward resolving the ongoing civil conflict in Anglophone Cameroon; as follows: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: ``That the Senate-- (1) strongly condemns abuses committed by state security forces and armed groups in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon, including extrajudicial killings and detentions, the use of force against civilians and nonviolent protestors, torture, rape, kidnappings, and other forms of violence against women, and violations of the freedoms of press, expression, and assembly; (2) urges all parties to the Anglophone conflict in Cameroon, including political opposition groups, to-- (A) conclude and uphold an immediate ceasefire; (B) guarantee unfettered humanitarian access and assistance to the Northwest and Southwest regions; (C) exercise restraint and ensure that political protests are peaceful; and (D) establish a credible process for an inclusive dialogue that includes all relevant stakeholders, including from civil society, to achieve a sustainable political solution that respects the rights and freedoms of all of the people of Cameroon; (3) affirms that the United States Government continues to hold the Government of Cameroon responsible for safeguarding the safety, security, and constitutional rights of all citizens, regardless of their region of origin or the regions in which they reside, or their religious beliefs or political views; (4) urges the Government of Cameroon to-- (A) initiate a credible, inclusive, good-faith effort to end the armed conflict in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon by addressing the root causes of the crisis and grievances and seeking nonviolent solutions to resolve the conflict, including possibly involving an independent mediator in negotiations; (B) follow through on initiatives developed to address the grievances that sparked the conflict, including the National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism, the Ministry of Decentralization and Local Development, and the National Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Committee; (C) fully implement recommendations of the Major National Dialogue held in late 2019; (D) respect the rule of law and the constitutional rights of all Cameroonians, including members of the political opposition, civil society activists, and journalists; (E) allow for credible, independent, and transparent investigations of all allegations of human rights abuses committed in the Northwest and Southwest regions; (F) release all political prisoners and journalists currently detained and immediately stop all arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearances, deaths in custody, and inhumane prison conditions; and (G) work with United States law enforcement to thoroughly investigate and prosecute those responsible for the murder of Charles Wesco; (5) urges the Anglophone armed separatist groups to-- (A) engage peacefully with government officials to express grievances and engage in nonviolent efforts to resolve the conflict, including participation in a credible and inclusive dialogue, possibly involving an independent mediator; (B) immediately cease human rights abuses, including killings of civilians, torture, kidnapping, and extortion; (C) immediately end coercive and violent enforcement of the school boycott in the Northwest and Southwest regions and attacks on schools, teachers, and education officials, and allow for the peaceful and safe return of all students to class; and (D) publicly condemn the illegal detention and kidnapping of civilians; (6) urges the Department of State, Department of the Treasury, and United States Agency for International Development, in coordination with other relevant Federal departments and agencies, to-- (A) consider imposing targeted sanctions on individual government and separatist leaders ``responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights''; (B) press the Government of Cameroon to provide unfettered humanitarian access to vulnerable populations in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon; (C) support credible efforts to address the root causes of the conflict and to achieve sustainable peace and reconciliation, possibly involving an independent mediator, and efforts to aid the economic recovery of and fight coronavirus in the Northwest and Southwest regions; (D) support humanitarian and development programming, including to meet immediate needs, advance nonviolent conflict resolution and reconciliation, promote economic recovery and development, support primary and secondary education, and strengthen democratic processes, including political decentralization, enshrined as a fundamental principle of state governance in the Constitution of Cameroon; (E) continue to limit security assistance to Cameroon and ensure that United States training and equipment is not being used to facilitate human rights abuses in the Northwest and Southwest regions; (F) prioritize efforts to help develop and sustain effective, professional civilian oversight of law enforcement and security services in Cameroon to ensure they are held accountable for abuses; and (G) engage in an ongoing effort to ensure that the crisis in the Anglophone regions is discussed in international fora, including the United Nations Security Council, that focus on urgent international diplomatic engagement and response; and (7) urges members of the international community to-- (A) join in a strategic collective effort to pressure the Government of Cameroon and separatist armed groups, including through the use of available diplomatic and punitive tools, to immediately conclude and uphold a ceasefire, participate in an inclusive and meaningful dialogue to address the root causes of the conflict and pending grievances, and seek nonviolent solutions to the conflict, including by possibly involving an independent and credible international mediator; (B) mobilize and coordinate funding for local and international organizations to provide humanitarian and development assistance, including to fight coronavirus, to communities affected by the crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon; (C) leverage bilateral relationships to encourage key partners of Cameroon, particularly France, to help foster a peaceful resolution to the crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon, potentially with the involvement of an independent mediator, and implement a mutually agreed-upon program to address longstanding grievances and marginalization; and (D) use regional and international fora, including the African Union, the Economic Community of Central African States, and the United Nations Security Council to-- (i) discuss the ongoing crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon; (ii) push for a cessation of violence, an expedient resolution, and the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon program for addressing the root causes and pending grievances; and (iii) maintain calls for the investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses and crimes committed against civilians. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS8006-4 | null | 2,077 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 2737. Mr. BOOZMAN (for Mr. Risch) proposed an amendment to the resolution S. Res. 684, calling on the Government of Cameroon and separatist armed groups from the English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions to end all violence, respect the human rights of all Cameroonians, and pursue a genuinely inclusive dialogue toward resolving the ongoing civil conflict in Anglophone Cameroon; as follows: Strike the preamble and insert the following: Whereas Cameroon is beset with multiple security challenges, including a Boko Haram insurgency in the Far North region, cross-border conflict and criminality by Central African militia groups to the east, and a civil war involving the Government of Cameroon and Anglophone separatist armed groups in the Northwest and Southwest regions; Whereas the official actions and policies of the Francophone-dominated Government of Cameroon have repressed English-speaking Cameroonians politically and economically throughout the history of Cameroon, dating back to the reunification of British-administered Southern Cameroons and French Cameroun under a federal system in October 1961; Whereas, in June 1972, following a national referendum, a new constitution was adopted that abolished the federal system, changed the name of the country from the Federal Republic of Cameroon to the United Republic of Cameroon, and gave additional powers to the presidency; Whereas Paul Biya, the oldest head of state in Africa, has been the President of Cameroon since 1982, maintaining his grip on power by centralizing authority in the executive, undermining the Constitution of Cameroon, impeding democratic governance through corrupt practices, using security services to repress the opposition, and conducting elections marred by widespread irregularities and allegations of fraud; Whereas key decentralization reforms enacted in the Constitution of Cameroon in 1996, which mandated the establishment of a decentralized unitary state, ``equality of all citizens before the law'', the equal status of French and English as official languages, and the establishment of local authorities with ``administrative and financial autonomy'', remain largely unrealized, though an enabling law was adopted in December 2019; Whereas, throughout his tenure, President Biya has spent extended periods in Europe, pursued government policies exclusively benefitting the Francophone majority in Cameroon, and crippled many parastatals and private enterprises in the Northwest and Southwest regions, further marginalizing English-speaking Cameroonians; Whereas, in October 2016, English-speaking lawyers, students, and teachers in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon took to the streets to peacefully protest marginalization of English-speaking Cameroonians by the Government of Cameroon in the legal and education systems, as exemplified by the appointment of French-speaking judges and teachers in the Northwest and Southwest regions and the publishing of important legislation solely in the French language; Whereas those peaceful protests by English-speaking lawyers, students, and teachers were met with excessive force by the police and gendarmerie of Cameroon, which led to gross human rights violations, the arrest of lawyers, teachers, and Anglophone civic leaders, and their detention in the notorious Kondengui prison in Yaounde; Whereas, amid broader protests across the Northwest and Southwest regions demanding greater autonomy from the central government of Cameroon, on October 1, 2017, the 56th anniversary of the end of British trusteeship over Southern Cameroons, the Anglophone crisis escalated as separatist armed groups declared independence from Cameroon; Whereas, in 2017, Anglophone separatist armed groups responded to the repressive and violent actions of the Government of Cameroon by targeting government officials and facilities as well as civilians and traditional leaders seen as sympathetic to the Government of Cameroon and brutally enforcing ``ghost town operations'' (general strikes) and school boycotts in the Northwest and Southwest regions; Whereas lengthy government-imposed shutdowns of the internet and social media in the Northwest and Southwest regions, totaling 240 days between 2017 and 2018, had a devastating impact on the economies and educational institutions in the regions, undermined freedom of expression, prevented the free flow of information related to the conflict, and restricted the ability of local communities to interact and communicate; Whereas the conflict in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon has caused considerable instability and human suffering, with more than 3,000 deaths linked to the conflict as of 2018, with more recent figures difficult to ascertain due to lack of access to the Northwest and Southwest regions, and according to United Nations agencies, as of 2020, approximately 3,000,000 people in Cameroon are in need of humanitarian assistance, approximately 60,000 Cameroonian refugees have fled to Nigeria, and approximately 700,000 persons are internally displaced; Whereas numerous credible reports from human rights monitors, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have documented the excessive use of force by government security forces against Cameroonian civilians living in the Anglophone regions, including the burning of villages, the use of live ammunition against protestors, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, sexual abuse, and killing of civilians, including women, children, and the elderly; Whereas the Department of State 2019 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Cameroon documented killings of civilians, kidnappings, abductions, and hostage taking, beatings, attacks on health workers and media, restrictions on movements of persons and goods, and use of child soldiers by armed Anglophone separatists; Whereas the United Nations Children's Fund estimates that more than 855,000 children are out of school due to the conflict, and the Department of State added Cameroon to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act List in the 2020 Trafficking in Persons Report as a foreign government ``identified during the previous year as having governmental armed forces, police, or other security forces, or government-supported armed groups that recruit or use child soldiers''; Whereas United States citizen Charles Wesco was shot and killed near the town of Bamenda, Cameroon, on October 30, 2018, and, in November 2018, the Department of State stated, ``In memory of American missionary Charles Wesco and all others who have lost their lives in the Anglophone Crisis, we urge all sides to end the violence and enter into broad-based reconciliatory dialogue without preconditions.''; Whereas, in June 2019, the Government of Switzerland announced that, together with the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, it was facilitating a dialogue between the Government of Cameroon and armed opposition groups to support a resolution of the Anglophone crisis; Whereas, in September 2019, President Biya hastily announced a Major National Dialogue, chaired by Prime Minister Ngute from September 30 to October 4, 2019, in Yaounde, ``to examine the ways and means to respond to the deeply-held aspirations of the populations in the Northwest and Southwest''; Whereas, though the Major National Dialogue led to some concessions by the Government of Cameroon on broader democratization issues, such as the release of some political prisoners, including the leader of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement, Maurice Kamto, and some of his associates after nine months of detention, it failed to bring separatist groups to the table; Whereas, since the Major National Dialogue, the killing of civilians and other atrocities continue to be recorded across the Northwest and Southwest regions, including in towns and villages such as Babanki, Bamenda, Bangem, Buea, Mamfe, Muyuka, Pinyin, and Ngarbuh, and the Government of Cameroon recently has resumed its attack on the political opposition, placing Mr. Kamto under house arrest and detaining dozens of his supporters; Whereas national and international outrage followed the massacre of at least 23 people, including 15 children and 2 pregnant women, by government security forces and allied militia on February 14, 2020, in Ngarbuh, Donga Mantung division, in the Northwest region, and a commission of inquiry established by Cameroonian authorities ultimately led to the arrest and charging of 3 soldiers for murder; Whereas, on June 5, 2020, amidst increasing concern over attacks on freedom of the press and detention of journalists on politically motivated charges in recent years, Cameroon authorities confirmed that an Anglophone journalist covering the conflict, Samuel Ajiekah Abuwe, known as Wazizi, who was arrested in August 2019 and transferred to a military facility, died in custody shortly after his arrest, an acknowledgment that led to widespread condemnation and calls for an independent inquiry; Whereas the Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR) of the Government of Cameroon, which has been accused of torture and extrajudicial killings and implicated in massacres like that of February 14, 2020, has received training and support from the United States, potentially in contravention of legal requirements that ``no assistance shall be furnished . . . to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights''; Whereas, in February 2019, the Department of State announced that it would withhold some security assistance to Cameroon, including equipment and training, citing credible allegations of human rights violations by state security forces and a lack of investigation, accountability, and transparency by the Government of Cameroon in response; Whereas, on December 26, 2019, the United States terminated the designation of Cameroon as a beneficiary under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) because ``the Government of Cameroon currently engages in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights''; Whereas a European Parliament resolution, passed on April 18, 2019, urged inclusive political dialogue to resolve the Anglophone crisis, called for the conflict to be considered by the United Nations Security Council, and urged the European Union to ``use the political leverage provided by development aid and other bilateral programmes to enhance the defense of human rights in Cameroon''; Whereas France maintains considerable interests in Cameroon, including significant economic and security cooperation, but has not adequately used its influence to stem atrocities committed in the Anglophone regions or support stronger international action to seek resolution to the conflict; Whereas the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Cameroon stated on January 24, 2019, that ``Cameroon can no longer be a forgotten crisis; it needs to be high on our agenda'', and, on June 22, 2020, a group of former world leaders and 5 Nobel Peace Laureates called on the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Secretary-General, the African Union, the Commonwealth of Nations, and La Francophonie to ``ensure that Cameroon's Anglophone conflict is on the agenda of the forthcoming UN Security Council meeting and all UNOCA sessions before the | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS8007 | null | 2,078 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2737. Mr. BOOZMAN (for Mr. Risch) proposed an amendment to the resolution S. Res. 684, calling on the Government of Cameroon and separatist armed groups from the English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions to end all violence, respect the human rights of all Cameroonians, and pursue a genuinely inclusive dialogue toward resolving the ongoing civil conflict in Anglophone Cameroon; as follows: Strike the preamble and insert the following: Whereas Cameroon is beset with multiple security challenges, including a Boko Haram insurgency in the Far North region, cross-border conflict and criminality by Central African militia groups to the east, and a civil war involving the Government of Cameroon and Anglophone separatist armed groups in the Northwest and Southwest regions; Whereas the official actions and policies of the Francophone-dominated Government of Cameroon have repressed English-speaking Cameroonians politically and economically throughout the history of Cameroon, dating back to the reunification of British-administered Southern Cameroons and French Cameroun under a federal system in October 1961; Whereas, in June 1972, following a national referendum, a new constitution was adopted that abolished the federal system, changed the name of the country from the Federal Republic of Cameroon to the United Republic of Cameroon, and gave additional powers to the presidency; Whereas Paul Biya, the oldest head of state in Africa, has been the President of Cameroon since 1982, maintaining his grip on power by centralizing authority in the executive, undermining the Constitution of Cameroon, impeding democratic governance through corrupt practices, using security services to repress the opposition, and conducting elections marred by widespread irregularities and allegations of fraud; Whereas key decentralization reforms enacted in the Constitution of Cameroon in 1996, which mandated the establishment of a decentralized unitary state, ``equality of all citizens before the law'', the equal status of French and English as official languages, and the establishment of local authorities with ``administrative and financial autonomy'', remain largely unrealized, though an enabling law was adopted in December 2019; Whereas, throughout his tenure, President Biya has spent extended periods in Europe, pursued government policies exclusively benefitting the Francophone majority in Cameroon, and crippled many parastatals and private enterprises in the Northwest and Southwest regions, further marginalizing English-speaking Cameroonians; Whereas, in October 2016, English-speaking lawyers, students, and teachers in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon took to the streets to peacefully protest marginalization of English-speaking Cameroonians by the Government of Cameroon in the legal and education systems, as exemplified by the appointment of French-speaking judges and teachers in the Northwest and Southwest regions and the publishing of important legislation solely in the French language; Whereas those peaceful protests by English-speaking lawyers, students, and teachers were met with excessive force by the police and gendarmerie of Cameroon, which led to gross human rights violations, the arrest of lawyers, teachers, and Anglophone civic leaders, and their detention in the notorious Kondengui prison in Yaounde; Whereas, amid broader protests across the Northwest and Southwest regions demanding greater autonomy from the central government of Cameroon, on October 1, 2017, the 56th anniversary of the end of British trusteeship over Southern Cameroons, the Anglophone crisis escalated as separatist armed groups declared independence from Cameroon; Whereas, in 2017, Anglophone separatist armed groups responded to the repressive and violent actions of the Government of Cameroon by targeting government officials and facilities as well as civilians and traditional leaders seen as sympathetic to the Government of Cameroon and brutally enforcing ``ghost town operations'' (general strikes) and school boycotts in the Northwest and Southwest regions; Whereas lengthy government-imposed shutdowns of the internet and social media in the Northwest and Southwest regions, totaling 240 days between 2017 and 2018, had a devastating impact on the economies and educational institutions in the regions, undermined freedom of expression, prevented the free flow of information related to the conflict, and restricted the ability of local communities to interact and communicate; Whereas the conflict in the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon has caused considerable instability and human suffering, with more than 3,000 deaths linked to the conflict as of 2018, with more recent figures difficult to ascertain due to lack of access to the Northwest and Southwest regions, and according to United Nations agencies, as of 2020, approximately 3,000,000 people in Cameroon are in need of humanitarian assistance, approximately 60,000 Cameroonian refugees have fled to Nigeria, and approximately 700,000 persons are internally displaced; Whereas numerous credible reports from human rights monitors, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have documented the excessive use of force by government security forces against Cameroonian civilians living in the Anglophone regions, including the burning of villages, the use of live ammunition against protestors, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, sexual abuse, and killing of civilians, including women, children, and the elderly; Whereas the Department of State 2019 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Cameroon documented killings of civilians, kidnappings, abductions, and hostage taking, beatings, attacks on health workers and media, restrictions on movements of persons and goods, and use of child soldiers by armed Anglophone separatists; Whereas the United Nations Children's Fund estimates that more than 855,000 children are out of school due to the conflict, and the Department of State added Cameroon to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act List in the 2020 Trafficking in Persons Report as a foreign government ``identified during the previous year as having governmental armed forces, police, or other security forces, or government-supported armed groups that recruit or use child soldiers''; Whereas United States citizen Charles Wesco was shot and killed near the town of Bamenda, Cameroon, on October 30, 2018, and, in November 2018, the Department of State stated, ``In memory of American missionary Charles Wesco and all others who have lost their lives in the Anglophone Crisis, we urge all sides to end the violence and enter into broad-based reconciliatory dialogue without preconditions.''; Whereas, in June 2019, the Government of Switzerland announced that, together with the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, it was facilitating a dialogue between the Government of Cameroon and armed opposition groups to support a resolution of the Anglophone crisis; Whereas, in September 2019, President Biya hastily announced a Major National Dialogue, chaired by Prime Minister Ngute from September 30 to October 4, 2019, in Yaounde, ``to examine the ways and means to respond to the deeply-held aspirations of the populations in the Northwest and Southwest''; Whereas, though the Major National Dialogue led to some concessions by the Government of Cameroon on broader democratization issues, such as the release of some political prisoners, including the leader of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement, Maurice Kamto, and some of his associates after nine months of detention, it failed to bring separatist groups to the table; Whereas, since the Major National Dialogue, the killing of civilians and other atrocities continue to be recorded across the Northwest and Southwest regions, including in towns and villages such as Babanki, Bamenda, Bangem, Buea, Mamfe, Muyuka, Pinyin, and Ngarbuh, and the Government of Cameroon recently has resumed its attack on the political opposition, placing Mr. Kamto under house arrest and detaining dozens of his supporters; Whereas national and international outrage followed the massacre of at least 23 people, including 15 children and 2 pregnant women, by government security forces and allied militia on February 14, 2020, in Ngarbuh, Donga Mantung division, in the Northwest region, and a commission of inquiry established by Cameroonian authorities ultimately led to the arrest and charging of 3 soldiers for murder; Whereas, on June 5, 2020, amidst increasing concern over attacks on freedom of the press and detention of journalists on politically motivated charges in recent years, Cameroon authorities confirmed that an Anglophone journalist covering the conflict, Samuel Ajiekah Abuwe, known as Wazizi, who was arrested in August 2019 and transferred to a military facility, died in custody shortly after his arrest, an acknowledgment that led to widespread condemnation and calls for an independent inquiry; Whereas the Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR) of the Government of Cameroon, which has been accused of torture and extrajudicial killings and implicated in massacres like that of February 14, 2020, has received training and support from the United States, potentially in contravention of legal requirements that ``no assistance shall be furnished . . . to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights''; Whereas, in February 2019, the Department of State announced that it would withhold some security assistance to Cameroon, including equipment and training, citing credible allegations of human rights violations by state security forces and a lack of investigation, accountability, and transparency by the Government of Cameroon in response; Whereas, on December 26, 2019, the United States terminated the designation of Cameroon as a beneficiary under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) because ``the Government of Cameroon currently engages in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights''; Whereas a European Parliament resolution, passed on April 18, 2019, urged inclusive political dialogue to resolve the Anglophone crisis, called for the conflict to be considered by the United Nations Security Council, and urged the European Union to ``use the political leverage provided by development aid and other bilateral programmes to enhance the defense of human rights in Cameroon''; Whereas France maintains considerable interests in Cameroon, including significant economic and security cooperation, but has not adequately used its influence to stem atrocities committed in the Anglophone regions or support stronger international action to seek resolution to the conflict; Whereas the United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Cameroon stated on January 24, 2019, that ``Cameroon can no longer be a forgotten crisis; it needs to be high on our agenda'', and, on June 22, 2020, a group of former world leaders and 5 Nobel Peace Laureates called on the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Secretary-General, the African Union, the Commonwealth of Nations, and La Francophonie to ``ensure that Cameroon's Anglophone conflict is on the agenda of the forthcoming UN Security Council meeting and all UNOCA sessions before the | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-01-pt1-PgS8007 | null | 2,079 |
formal | handouts | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair customarily takes this occasion at the outset of a Congress to announce policies with respect to particular aspects of the legislative process. The Chair will insert in the Record announcements concerning: First, privileges of the floor; Second, introduction of bills and resolutions; Third, unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of legislation; Fourth, recognition for 1-minute speeches; Fifth, recognition for Special Order speeches; Sixth, decorum in debate; Seventh, conduct of votes by electronic device; Eighth, use of handouts on the House floor; Ninth, use of electronic equipment on the House floor; and Tenth, use of the Chamber. These announcements, where appropriate, will reiterate the origins of the stated policies. The Chair intends to continue in the 117th Congress the policies reflected in these statements. The policy announced in the 102nd Congress with respect to jurisdictional concepts related to clauses 5(a) of rule XXI--tax and tariff measures--will continue to govern but need not be reiterated, as it is adequately documented as precedent in the House Rules and Manual. Without objection, the announcements will be printed in the Record. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-01-04-pt1-PgH38-7 | null | 2,080 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | 8, 117TH CONGRESS Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 4, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, 117th Congress, I hereby submit the following regulations regarding remote committee proceedings for printing in the Congressional Record. Sincerely, James P. McGovern, Chairman, Committee on Rules.Remote Committee Proceedings Regulations Pursuant to House Resolution 8 a. presence and voting l. Members participating remotely in a committee proceeding must be visible on the software platform's video function to be considered in attendance and to participate unless connectivity issues or other technical problems render the member unable to fully participate on camera (except as provided in regulations A.2 and A.3). 2. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues or other technical problems does not apply if a point of order has been made that a quorum is not present. Members participating remotely must be visible on the software platform's video function in order to be counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum. 3. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues or other technical problems does not apply during a vote. Members participating remotely must be visible on the software platform's video function in order to vote. 4. Members participating remotely off-camera due to connectivity issues or other technical problems pursuant to regulation A.1 must inform committee majority and minority staff either directly or through staff. 5. The chair shall make a good faith effort to provide every member experiencing connectivity issues an opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings, subject to regulations A.2 and A.3. 6. Members may not participate in more than one committee proceeding simultaneously. To facilitate secure remote participation, members may maintain a connection to a software platform while not in attendance (but may not transmit video or audio on the software platform at such times). b. technology 1. When a proceeding is conducted at a remote ``place'' pursuant to section 4(a)(6) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress, streaming the proceeding on the committee's website constitutes sufficient public, Member, and press access for the purposes of section 4(e) of such resolution. Proceedings may be streamed on a reasonably short delay if necessary for technical reasons. 2. Any text based or private messaging function in the software platform used for virtual proceedings must be disabled unless it is used to provide technical or logistical support to members, witnesses, or staff, which may be excluded from the public video stream and will not be considered a committee record. 3. When providing notice of a remote proceeding, chairs must also provide notice of the software platform to be used for participation. Notice of such software platform constitutes proper notice of a ``place'' for purposes of section 4(a)(6) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress. 4. Members participating remotely must be provided access to technical support via telephone throughout any proceeding. 5. Only members, witnesses, temporarily designated participating staff, and necessary support staff may have participatory access on the software platform, meaning access which enables an individual to speak and be seen, as opposed to simply viewing the proceeding. 6. The committee majority staff, in consultation with the committee minority staff, must prepare a list of names or titles of individuals with participatory access on the software platform and share the list with members at least 24 hours prior to any proceeding, to the greatest extent practicable. 7. Official reporters should be given direct access to the platform itself rather than the livestream. 8. Members of the press and the public may view remote proceedings via the committee website, as outlined in regulation B.1. 9. Committees must conduct remote proceedings using software platforms certified by the Chief Administrative Officer. The Chief Administrative Officer should inform committees, including the ranking minority members, each time a software platform is certified. 10. To the greatest extent practicable, the software platform used for remote proceedings must enable participants to view proceedings in a ``grid view'' format. 11. Committee chairs should inform the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration of any impactful technical issues arising from conducting proceedings remotely. c. deliberations 1. Committee chairs must allow members participating remotely reasonable latitude when they are seeking recognition for motions, points of order, or any other procedures where timeliness is a factor in the event that there are problems with technology such as lag or having the microphone muted. 2. Members seeking recognition while participating remotely must do so verbally and identify themselves to the chair. It is the responsibility of the member seeking recognition to unmute their microphone prior to speaking. 3. No one may unmute a member's microphone absent an explicit request from the member, which may be via another channel. 4. The chair or an individual designated by the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. This policy must be carried out uniformly and should be announced at the outset of the proceeding. Members should have a clear understanding of the need to unmute their microphone each time they wish to speak. d. decorum 1. Member microphones may not be muted for the purposes of enforcing decorum. 2. Members participating remotely must conform to the same standards for proper attire as are required to participate in a committee proceeding in person. 3. Members and witnesses participating remotely should appear before a nonpolitical, professionally appropriate background that is minimally distracting to other members and witnesses, to the greatest extent possible. 4. Members are expected to follow proper decorum with respect to the display of exhibits when participating remotely and should refrain from displaying an exhibit when not under recognition. e. committee process l. Committee chairs shall respect members' disparate time zones when scheduling committee proceedings. 2. Committees shall provide an electronic repository, which may be an email inbox, for the submission of motions, amendments, and other documents pursuant to section 4(c)(3) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress and shall notify members regarding how to properly submit documents electronically before and during a committee proceeding. 3. Pursuant to section 4(c)(5) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress, in determining the order in which amendments to a measure or matter pending before a committee will be considered in a proceeding with remote participants, the chair may give priority to amendments, otherwise in order, that have been filed with the committee through the electronic repository at least 4 hours prior to the business meeting on said measure or matter. 4. Within 24 hours of declaring a recess pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress the chair shall notify members of the circumstances which required the recess to be declared. 5. Committees shall facilitate the maintenance of electronically-submitted documents as part of any committee record maintained pursuant to clause 2(e)(1) of rule XI. f. committee reports 1. Committee reports shall be filed in a single comprehensive submission including: (1) the report as a single electronic document; (2) the electronic files comprising such document; and (3) an electronic file containing the reported measure. Such committee reports shall not be officially processed unless all requirements are met, and properly filed reports shall be processed in the form submitted. 2. Committee reports filed electronically remain subject to all House rules regarding such reports to the extent consistent with House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress. 3. Except for reports submitted after the receipt of separate views pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XIII, committee reports filed electronically will be officially processed only when the House is in session. Committees must provide reasonable notice to the Clerk when the House is out of session prior to filing a report electronically upon receiving all separate views pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-01-04-pt1-PgH41-2 | null | 2,081 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | 8, 117TH CONGRESS Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 4, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, 117th Congress, I hereby submit the following regulations regarding remote committee proceedings for printing in the Congressional Record. Sincerely, James P. McGovern, Chairman, Committee on Rules.Remote Committee Proceedings Regulations Pursuant to House Resolution 8 a. presence and voting l. Members participating remotely in a committee proceeding must be visible on the software platform's video function to be considered in attendance and to participate unless connectivity issues or other technical problems render the member unable to fully participate on camera (except as provided in regulations A.2 and A.3). 2. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues or other technical problems does not apply if a point of order has been made that a quorum is not present. Members participating remotely must be visible on the software platform's video function in order to be counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum. 3. The exception in regulation A.1 for connectivity issues or other technical problems does not apply during a vote. Members participating remotely must be visible on the software platform's video function in order to vote. 4. Members participating remotely off-camera due to connectivity issues or other technical problems pursuant to regulation A.1 must inform committee majority and minority staff either directly or through staff. 5. The chair shall make a good faith effort to provide every member experiencing connectivity issues an opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings, subject to regulations A.2 and A.3. 6. Members may not participate in more than one committee proceeding simultaneously. To facilitate secure remote participation, members may maintain a connection to a software platform while not in attendance (but may not transmit video or audio on the software platform at such times). b. technology 1. When a proceeding is conducted at a remote ``place'' pursuant to section 4(a)(6) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress, streaming the proceeding on the committee's website constitutes sufficient public, Member, and press access for the purposes of section 4(e) of such resolution. Proceedings may be streamed on a reasonably short delay if necessary for technical reasons. 2. Any text based or private messaging function in the software platform used for virtual proceedings must be disabled unless it is used to provide technical or logistical support to members, witnesses, or staff, which may be excluded from the public video stream and will not be considered a committee record. 3. When providing notice of a remote proceeding, chairs must also provide notice of the software platform to be used for participation. Notice of such software platform constitutes proper notice of a ``place'' for purposes of section 4(a)(6) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress. 4. Members participating remotely must be provided access to technical support via telephone throughout any proceeding. 5. Only members, witnesses, temporarily designated participating staff, and necessary support staff may have participatory access on the software platform, meaning access which enables an individual to speak and be seen, as opposed to simply viewing the proceeding. 6. The committee majority staff, in consultation with the committee minority staff, must prepare a list of names or titles of individuals with participatory access on the software platform and share the list with members at least 24 hours prior to any proceeding, to the greatest extent practicable. 7. Official reporters should be given direct access to the platform itself rather than the livestream. 8. Members of the press and the public may view remote proceedings via the committee website, as outlined in regulation B.1. 9. Committees must conduct remote proceedings using software platforms certified by the Chief Administrative Officer. The Chief Administrative Officer should inform committees, including the ranking minority members, each time a software platform is certified. 10. To the greatest extent practicable, the software platform used for remote proceedings must enable participants to view proceedings in a ``grid view'' format. 11. Committee chairs should inform the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration of any impactful technical issues arising from conducting proceedings remotely. c. deliberations 1. Committee chairs must allow members participating remotely reasonable latitude when they are seeking recognition for motions, points of order, or any other procedures where timeliness is a factor in the event that there are problems with technology such as lag or having the microphone muted. 2. Members seeking recognition while participating remotely must do so verbally and identify themselves to the chair. It is the responsibility of the member seeking recognition to unmute their microphone prior to speaking. 3. No one may unmute a member's microphone absent an explicit request from the member, which may be via another channel. 4. The chair or an individual designated by the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. This policy must be carried out uniformly and should be announced at the outset of the proceeding. Members should have a clear understanding of the need to unmute their microphone each time they wish to speak. d. decorum 1. Member microphones may not be muted for the purposes of enforcing decorum. 2. Members participating remotely must conform to the same standards for proper attire as are required to participate in a committee proceeding in person. 3. Members and witnesses participating remotely should appear before a nonpolitical, professionally appropriate background that is minimally distracting to other members and witnesses, to the greatest extent possible. 4. Members are expected to follow proper decorum with respect to the display of exhibits when participating remotely and should refrain from displaying an exhibit when not under recognition. e. committee process l. Committee chairs shall respect members' disparate time zones when scheduling committee proceedings. 2. Committees shall provide an electronic repository, which may be an email inbox, for the submission of motions, amendments, and other documents pursuant to section 4(c)(3) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress and shall notify members regarding how to properly submit documents electronically before and during a committee proceeding. 3. Pursuant to section 4(c)(5) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress, in determining the order in which amendments to a measure or matter pending before a committee will be considered in a proceeding with remote participants, the chair may give priority to amendments, otherwise in order, that have been filed with the committee through the electronic repository at least 4 hours prior to the business meeting on said measure or matter. 4. Within 24 hours of declaring a recess pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress the chair shall notify members of the circumstances which required the recess to be declared. 5. Committees shall facilitate the maintenance of electronically-submitted documents as part of any committee record maintained pursuant to clause 2(e)(1) of rule XI. f. committee reports 1. Committee reports shall be filed in a single comprehensive submission including: (1) the report as a single electronic document; (2) the electronic files comprising such document; and (3) an electronic file containing the reported measure. Such committee reports shall not be officially processed unless all requirements are met, and properly filed reports shall be processed in the form submitted. 2. Committee reports filed electronically remain subject to all House rules regarding such reports to the extent consistent with House Resolution 965 of the 116th Congress. 3. Except for reports submitted after the receipt of separate views pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XIII, committee reports filed electronically will be officially processed only when the House is in session. Committees must provide reasonable notice to the Clerk when the House is out of session prior to filing a report electronically upon receiving all separate views pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-01-04-pt1-PgH41-2 | null | 2,082 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath to the gentleman from Florida, the whole number of the House is 431. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-01-05-pt1-PgH57-7 | null | 2,083 |
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-2021-01-05-pt1-PgH57-8 | null | 2,084 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York | House | CREC-2021-01-05-pt1-PgH62 | null | 2,085 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | 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. 22) to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-01-05-pt1-PgH71 | null | 2,086 |
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. 22) to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-01-05-pt1-PgH71 | null | 2,087 |
formal | steroids | null | transphobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are debating a step that has never been taken in American history: whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a Presidential election. I have served 36 years in the Senate. This will be the most important vote I have ever cast. President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations, to constitutional arguments, to sweeping conspiracy theories. I supported the President's right to use the legal system. Dozens of lawsuits received hearings in courtrooms all across our country, but over and over, courts rejected these claims, including all-star judges whom the President himself nominated. Every election, we know, features some illegality and irregularity, and, of course, that is unacceptable I support strong State-led voting reforms. Last year's bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm. But, my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale--the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election, nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence. The Constitution gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken. They have all spoken. If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever. This election actually was not unusually close. Just in recent history, 1976, 2000, and 2004 were all closer than this one. The electoral college margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016. If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We would never see the whole Nation accept an election again. Every 4 years would be a scramble for power at any cost. The electoral college, which most of us on this side been have defending for years, would cease to exist, leaving many of our States with no real say at all in choosing a President. The effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. Self-government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground rules of our system. We cannot keep drifting apart into two separate tribes with a separate set of facts and separate realities with nothing in common except our hostility toward each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share. Every time--every time in the last 30 years that Democrats have lost a Presidential race, they have tried a challenge just like this--after 2000, after 2004, and after 2016. After 2004, a Senator joined and forced the same debate. And, believe it or not, Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Hillary Clinton praised--praised and applauded the stunt. Republicans condemned those baseless efforts back then, and we just spent 4 years condemning Democrats' shameful attacks on the validity of President Trump's own election. So there can be no double standard. The media that is outraged today spent 4 years aiding and abetting the Democrats' attacks on our institutions after they lost. But we must not imitate and escalate what we repudiate. Our duty is to govern for the public good. The United States Senate has a higher calling than an endless spiral of partisan vengeance. Congress will either overrule the voters, the States, and the courts for the first time ever or honor the people's decision. We will either guarantee Democrats' delegitimizing efforts after 2016 became a permanent new routine for both sides or declare that our Nation deserves a lot better than this. We will either hasten down a poisonous path where only the winners of elections actually accept the results or show we can still muster the patriotic courage that our forebears showed not only in victory but in defeat. The Framers built the Senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our Republic. So I believe protecting our constitutional order requires respecting the limits of our own power. It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the States on this extraordinarily thin basis, and I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS14-3 | null | 2,088 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Vice President, as prescribed by the Constitution and the laws of the Nation, the purpose of this joint session is for tellers, appointed on a bipartisan basis by the two Houses, to read to the Congress the results of an election that has already happened. We are here to receive an announcement of a vote that has already been certified by every State in the Union and confirmed by the courts many times--many times over. We are here to watch the current Vice President open envelopes and receive the news of a verdict that has already been rendered. It is a solemn and august occasion, no doubt, but it is a formality. The Congress does not determine the outcome of elections; the people do. The Congress is not endowed with the power to administer elections; our States are given that power. By the end of the proceedings today, there will be confirmed once again something that is well known and well settled: The American people elected Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to be the next President and Vice President of the United States. Yet a number of our colleagues have organized an effort to undermine and object to that free and fair election. They are in the minority. They will lose; they know that. They have no evidence of widespread voter fraud upon which to base their objections. That is because there is none. There is none, not brought before any of the courts successfully. They know that President Trump and his allies have suffered a defeat in court after court across the country, losing no fewer than 62 legal challenges. And, I might add, many Republican-appointed judges--some appointed by President Trump--rendered those decisions. They know--you all know--that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are going to be sworn in as President and Vice President of the United States on January 20, but they are going to object to the counting of the vote anyway, and in the process, they will embarrass themselves, they will embarrass their party, and worst of all, they will embarrass their country. This insurrection was fortunately discouraged by the leadership of the majority party, but it was not quelled.It is a very sad comment on our times that merely accepting the results of an election is considered an act of political courage. Sadder and more dangerous still is the fact that an element of the Republican Party believes their political viability hinges on the endorsement of an attempted coup, that anyone--much less an elected official--would be willing to tarnish our democracy in order to burnish their personal political fortunes. Over the course of the afternoon and however far into the evening this band of Republic objectors wants to take us, Senators of good will from both sides of the aisle will explain why these challenges must be dismissed. The Senators from States whose electoral votes are being challenged will explain how the allegations of fraud are baseless. And a substantial bipartisan majority must vote to put down these objections and defend the sanctity of our elections and indeed--and indeed--our great and grand democracy because that is what we are talking about today: the health of power democracy, this wonderful, beautiful, grand democracy where the peaceful passing of the torch is extolled by schoolchildren in the second grade but not by some here. As we speak, half of our voters are being conditioned by the outgoing President to believe that when his party loses an election, the results must not be legitimate. As we speak, the eyes of the world are on this Chamber, questioning whether America is still the shining example of democracy, the shining city on the Hill. What message will we send today to our people, to the world that has so looked up to us for centuries? What message will we send to fledgling democracies who study our Constitution, mirror our laws and traditions in the hopes that they, too, can build a country ruled by the consent of the governed? What message will we send to those countries where democratic values are under assault and look to us to see if those values are still worth fighting for? What message will we send to every dark corner of the world where human rights are betrayed, elections are stolen, human dignity denied? What will we show those people? Will we show those people that there is a better way to ensure liberty and opportunity of humankind? Sadly, a small band of Republican objectors may darken the view of our democracy today, but a larger group of Senators and House Members from both sides of the aisle can send a message, too; that democracy beats deep in the hearts of our citizens and our elected representatives; that we are a country of laws and of not men; that our traditions are not so easily discarded, even by our President; that facts matter; that truth matters; that while democracy allows free speech and free expression, even if that expression is antidemocratic, there will always, always be--praise God--a far broader and stronger coalition ready to push back and defend everything we hold dear. We can send that message today by voting in large and overwhelming numbers to defeat these objections. My colleagues, we each swore an oath just 3 days ago that we would defend and support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. We swore that we took this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that we could well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office we were about to enter, so help us God. The precise words of that oath were shortly written after the Civil War, when the idea of true faith and allegiance to this country and its Constitution took on enormous meaning. Let those words ring in the ears of every Senator today. Let us do our duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help us God. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS14-5 | null | 2,089 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues allowing me to speak twice today. But my understanding is that later this evening, objectors will object to the certification of Pennsylvania's electoral votes because they disapprove of the process that my State used in the last election. So in light of my expectation of this objection, I rise to defend the right of my citizens, my constituents, to vote in the Presidential election. Let's be clear. That is exactly what this objection is about. It is what it would do. It would overturn the results of the Presidential election in Pennsylvania, and it would thereby deny Pennsylvania's voters the opportunity to even participate in the Presidential election. Even if Congress did have the constitutional responsibility to judge the worthiness of a State's election process, which it does not, rejecting Pennsylvania's electoral votes would still be wildly out of proportion to the purported offenses and very damaging to our Republic. Let me go through a few facts about Pennsylvania. First, some of the objectors and, in fact, even the President of the United States this morning have observed that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disregarded existing law when it ruled that mail-in ballots could be counted even if they arrived up to 3 days after election day. Now, the objectors are right about that. In my view, the Supreme Court of the United States should overturn that illegal decision. But only 10,097 ballots arrived in Pennsylvania during the 3 days after the election, and those 10,097 ballots have been excluded from the vote count that resulted in President-Elect Biden winning Pennsylvania by about 80,000 votes. What greater remedy could the objectors possibly want than the complete exclusion of the late-arriving ballots? How could we possibly invalidate the entire Pennsylvania election over 10,000 votes that were not even included in the vote count? A second charge we heard--and the Senator from Missouri alluded to it this evening--is that a 2019 Pennsylvania law that allows mail-in ballots for any reason--that that might violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. First of all, as Senator Casey observed, this was a bipartisan law passed with nearly unanimous Republican support. Clearly, the State legislators and the Governor believe it is consistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution. Secondly, this law was not challenged when it was passed. It wasn't challenged when it was applied during the June primary election. It was challenged only after President Trump lost the general election. But 2.6 million Pennsylvanians voted by mail-in ballot in the general election. Over 37 percent of Pennsylvania voters, in good faith, relied on a law to cast their votes, as they had done previously. Now, I understand you can make a theoretical argument about whether this is consistent with Pennsylvania's Constitution, and that needs to be resolved for future elections. But because of this constitutional question that some people have, the objectors want to prevent Pennsylvania voters from participating in the Presidential election entirely. That would be an outrageous remedy to this purported offense. A third charge we have heard is that Pennsylvania officials did not properly implement Pennsylvania election law in a variety of other ways. But the Trump campaign has shown that many of these issues have--well, first of all, none of these issues would have changed the election outcome, but more importantly, the campaign had many opportunities, of which it availed itself, to litigate these issues. They did time and again, and they lost repeatedly, often in unanimous, bipartisan decisions. Some of the objectors also cite Congress's own failure to investigate allegations of election irregularities, and that is their justification for refusing to certify the election results. But the allegations of election irregularities and fraud have been investigated. They have been adjudicated. They were adjudicated in the States in which they were alleged to have occurred. In Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign took their case of election irregularities into the courtroom of Judge Matthew Brann of the Federal district court. Judge Brann is a conservative Republican Federalist Society member. Here is what he said about the Trump campaign case: This court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations . . . unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all [the] voters of the sixth most populated state. So the campaign then appealed Judge Brann's decision to the Third Circuit, and they drew a three-judge panel, all Republican-appointed judges, one appointed by President Trump. The panel concurred with Judge Brann. Certainly there were irregularities in this election--there always are--but there is no evidence of significant fraud, conspiracies, or even significant anomalies that cast any serious doubt on who actually won the election. You know, one of the ways you can tell is to look at the big picture in Pennsylvania. Look at what happened. In 2016, President Trump won Pennsylvania by eight-tenths of 1 percent. In 2020, he lost Pennsylvania by a little over 1 percent. Is there anything at all that is implausible or surprising about a 2-percent change in the election outcome? Relative to 2016, in Pennsylvania the President lost a little ground in most of the rural counties he had carried. He lost a lot of ground in the big suburban counties, and he slightly narrowed his large loss in Philadelphia. There are no surprises here. This reflects a pattern that occurred all across the country. My colleagues, as I have said, it is not our responsibility to sit in judgment of State election procedures in the first place, but if it were, there would not be nearly sufficient reason to deny my constituents their right to participate in this Presidential election. Joe Biden won the election. That is not what I had hoped for, but that is what happened. It was an honest victory with the usual minor irregularities that occur in most elections. We witnessed today the damage that can result when men in power and responsibility refuse to acknowledge the truth. We saw bloodshed because the demagogue chose to spread falsehoods and sow distrust of his own fellow Americans. Let's not abet such deception. Let's reject this motion | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TOOMEY | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS32-2 | null | 2,090 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues allowing me to speak twice today. But my understanding is that later this evening, objectors will object to the certification of Pennsylvania's electoral votes because they disapprove of the process that my State used in the last election. So in light of my expectation of this objection, I rise to defend the right of my citizens, my constituents, to vote in the Presidential election. Let's be clear. That is exactly what this objection is about. It is what it would do. It would overturn the results of the Presidential election in Pennsylvania, and it would thereby deny Pennsylvania's voters the opportunity to even participate in the Presidential election. Even if Congress did have the constitutional responsibility to judge the worthiness of a State's election process, which it does not, rejecting Pennsylvania's electoral votes would still be wildly out of proportion to the purported offenses and very damaging to our Republic. Let me go through a few facts about Pennsylvania. First, some of the objectors and, in fact, even the President of the United States this morning have observed that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disregarded existing law when it ruled that mail-in ballots could be counted even if they arrived up to 3 days after election day. Now, the objectors are right about that. In my view, the Supreme Court of the United States should overturn that illegal decision. But only 10,097 ballots arrived in Pennsylvania during the 3 days after the election, and those 10,097 ballots have been excluded from the vote count that resulted in President-Elect Biden winning Pennsylvania by about 80,000 votes. What greater remedy could the objectors possibly want than the complete exclusion of the late-arriving ballots? How could we possibly invalidate the entire Pennsylvania election over 10,000 votes that were not even included in the vote count? A second charge we heard--and the Senator from Missouri alluded to it this evening--is that a 2019 Pennsylvania law that allows mail-in ballots for any reason--that that might violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. First of all, as Senator Casey observed, this was a bipartisan law passed with nearly unanimous Republican support. Clearly, the State legislators and the Governor believe it is consistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution. Secondly, this law was not challenged when it was passed. It wasn't challenged when it was applied during the June primary election. It was challenged only after President Trump lost the general election. But 2.6 million Pennsylvanians voted by mail-in ballot in the general election. Over 37 percent of Pennsylvania voters, in good faith, relied on a law to cast their votes, as they had done previously. Now, I understand you can make a theoretical argument about whether this is consistent with Pennsylvania's Constitution, and that needs to be resolved for future elections. But because of this constitutional question that some people have, the objectors want to prevent Pennsylvania voters from participating in the Presidential election entirely. That would be an outrageous remedy to this purported offense. A third charge we have heard is that Pennsylvania officials did not properly implement Pennsylvania election law in a variety of other ways. But the Trump campaign has shown that many of these issues have--well, first of all, none of these issues would have changed the election outcome, but more importantly, the campaign had many opportunities, of which it availed itself, to litigate these issues. They did time and again, and they lost repeatedly, often in unanimous, bipartisan decisions. Some of the objectors also cite Congress's own failure to investigate allegations of election irregularities, and that is their justification for refusing to certify the election results. But the allegations of election irregularities and fraud have been investigated. They have been adjudicated. They were adjudicated in the States in which they were alleged to have occurred. In Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign took their case of election irregularities into the courtroom of Judge Matthew Brann of the Federal district court. Judge Brann is a conservative Republican Federalist Society member. Here is what he said about the Trump campaign case: This court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations . . . unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all [the] voters of the sixth most populated state. So the campaign then appealed Judge Brann's decision to the Third Circuit, and they drew a three-judge panel, all Republican-appointed judges, one appointed by President Trump. The panel concurred with Judge Brann. Certainly there were irregularities in this election--there always are--but there is no evidence of significant fraud, conspiracies, or even significant anomalies that cast any serious doubt on who actually won the election. You know, one of the ways you can tell is to look at the big picture in Pennsylvania. Look at what happened. In 2016, President Trump won Pennsylvania by eight-tenths of 1 percent. In 2020, he lost Pennsylvania by a little over 1 percent. Is there anything at all that is implausible or surprising about a 2-percent change in the election outcome? Relative to 2016, in Pennsylvania the President lost a little ground in most of the rural counties he had carried. He lost a lot of ground in the big suburban counties, and he slightly narrowed his large loss in Philadelphia. There are no surprises here. This reflects a pattern that occurred all across the country. My colleagues, as I have said, it is not our responsibility to sit in judgment of State election procedures in the first place, but if it were, there would not be nearly sufficient reason to deny my constituents their right to participate in this Presidential election. Joe Biden won the election. That is not what I had hoped for, but that is what happened. It was an honest victory with the usual minor irregularities that occur in most elections. We witnessed today the damage that can result when men in power and responsibility refuse to acknowledge the truth. We saw bloodshed because the demagogue chose to spread falsehoods and sow distrust of his own fellow Americans. Let's not abet such deception. Let's reject this motion | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TOOMEY | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS32-2 | null | 2,091 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At 12:32 p.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. 21. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing products and services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing products and services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes. H.R. 22. An act to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available. H.R. 23. An act to require congressional notification for certain changes in status of inspectors general, and for other purposes. H.R. 26. An act to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, to correct a provision on the prohibition on the use of a reverse auction, and for other purposes. H.R. 27. An act to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of settlement agreements, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolutions, without amendment: S. Con. Res. 1. Concurrent resolution to provide for the counting on January 6, 2021, of the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States. S. Con. Res. 2. Concurrent resolution extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and authorizing the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H. Con. Res. 1. Concurrent resolution regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government. The message also announced that the House has agreed to H. Res. 2, resolving that Cheryl L. Johnson of the State of Louisiana be, and is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives; that Paul D. Irving of the State of Florida be, and is hereby, chosen Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives; that Catherine Szpindor of the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and is hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives; and that Reverend Doctor Margaret Grun Kibben of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be, and is hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House of Representatives. The message further announced that the House has agreed to H. Res. 3, resolving that the Senate be informed that a quorum of the House of Representatives has assembled; that Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from the State of California, has been elected Speaker; and that Cheryl L. Johnson, a citizen of the State of Louisiana, has been elected Clerk of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress. The message also announced that a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make. The message further announced that pursuant to Senate concurrent resolution 1, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, the Speaker appoints as tellers on the part of the House to count the electoral votes: Ms. Lofgren of California and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. The message also announced that pursuant to section 1238(b)(3) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002), as amended, and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, the Speaker re-appoints the following Members on the part of the House of Representatives to the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission for a term expiring on December 31, 2022: Mr. Jeffrey L. Fiedler of La Quinta, California, and Mr. Michael Wessel of Falls Church, Virginia. The message further announced that pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 2001, and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, the Speaker appoints the following Members to the House Office Building Commission to serve with herself: Mr. Hoyer of Maryland and Mr. McCarthy of California. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS39-2 | null | 2,092 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 12:32 p.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. 21. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing products and services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing products and services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes. H.R. 22. An act to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available. H.R. 23. An act to require congressional notification for certain changes in status of inspectors general, and for other purposes. H.R. 26. An act to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, to correct a provision on the prohibition on the use of a reverse auction, and for other purposes. H.R. 27. An act to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of settlement agreements, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolutions, without amendment: S. Con. Res. 1. Concurrent resolution to provide for the counting on January 6, 2021, of the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States. S. Con. Res. 2. Concurrent resolution extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and authorizing the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H. Con. Res. 1. Concurrent resolution regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government. The message also announced that the House has agreed to H. Res. 2, resolving that Cheryl L. Johnson of the State of Louisiana be, and is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives; that Paul D. Irving of the State of Florida be, and is hereby, chosen Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives; that Catherine Szpindor of the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and is hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives; and that Reverend Doctor Margaret Grun Kibben of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be, and is hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House of Representatives. The message further announced that the House has agreed to H. Res. 3, resolving that the Senate be informed that a quorum of the House of Representatives has assembled; that Nancy Pelosi, a Representative from the State of California, has been elected Speaker; and that Cheryl L. Johnson, a citizen of the State of Louisiana, has been elected Clerk of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress. The message also announced that a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make. The message further announced that pursuant to Senate concurrent resolution 1, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, the Speaker appoints as tellers on the part of the House to count the electoral votes: Ms. Lofgren of California and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. The message also announced that pursuant to section 1238(b)(3) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002), as amended, and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, the Speaker re-appoints the following Members on the part of the House of Representatives to the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission for a term expiring on December 31, 2022: Mr. Jeffrey L. Fiedler of La Quinta, California, and Mr. Michael Wessel of Falls Church, Virginia. The message further announced that pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 2001, and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, the Speaker appoints the following Members to the House Office Building Commission to serve with herself: Mr. Hoyer of Maryland and Mr. McCarthy of California. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS39-2 | null | 2,093 |
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. 21. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing products and services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing products and services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 22. An act to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 23. An act to require congressional notification for certain changes in status of inspectors general, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 26. An act to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, to correct a provision on the prohibition on the use of a reverse auction, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 27. An act to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of settlement agreements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS40-2 | null | 2,094 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 21. An act to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing products and services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing products and services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 22. An act to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 23. An act to require congressional notification for certain changes in status of inspectors general, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 26. An act to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, to correct a provision on the prohibition on the use of a reverse auction, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 27. An act to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of settlement agreements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-06-pt1-PgS40-2 | null | 2,095 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath of office to Members-elect, the whole number of the House is now 433. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-01-12-pt1-PgH126 | null | 2,096 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) the whole number of the House is 432. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-01-15-pt1-PgH197-7 | null | 2,097 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Gracious God, we thank You for the heroes You have set before us, exemplars like Martin Luther King, Jr., whose voice sounds a clarion call that resonates still today. May his prayers be ours and his dream our own: that we would live according to Your design that no one would be judged by the color of their skin, or their side of the aisle, but by the content of their character. Leave us not devoid of the power to forgive but embolden us with the power to love, that we would be willing to risk our position, our prestige, and even our lives for the welfare of our neighbors and the good of this country. Then one day may this Nation be capable to present itself to be measured not by where we have stood in moments of comfort and convenience but in times of challenge and controversy. We pray these things, asking for the intelligence to know Your will, the courage to do Your will, and the devotion to love Your will. In the strength of Your holy name. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-01-19-pt1-PgH201-2 | null | 2,098 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the last time the Senate convened we had just reclaimed the Capitol from violent criminals who tried to stop Congress from doing our duty. The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the Federal Government which they did not like. But we pressed on. We stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in our Nation, not even for one night. We certified the people's choice for their 46th President. Tomorrow, President-Elect Biden and Vice President-Elect Harris will be sworn in. We will have a safe and successful inaugural right here on the west front of the Capitol--the space that President Bush 41 called ``democracy's front porch.'' And then we will move forward. Our work for the American people will continue, as it has for more than 230 years. There are serious challenges that our Nation needs to continue confronting, but there will also be great and hopeful opportunities for us to seize. Certainly, November's elections did not hand any side a mandate for sweeping ideological change. Americans elected a closely divided Senate, a closely divided House, and a Presidential candidate who said he would represent everyone. So our marching orders from the American people are clear. We are to have a robust discussion and seek common ground. We are to pursue bipartisan agreement everywhere we can and check and balance one another respectfully where we must. And through all of this, we must always keep in mind that we are all Americans, we all love this country, and we are all in this together. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-01-19-pt1-PgS49-10 | null | 2,099 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.