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 | law and order | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, January 27, marks an anniversary, in a way, of an event that occurred in this Chamber 3 weeks ago, an event on January 6, which some of us will never forget. We are in the midst of preparing for an impeachment trial of President Donald Trump for any responsibility that he bears for that day's events. Some have said we shouldn't do that, that we shouldn't have an impeachment trial. The former U.N. Ambassador and Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, said in an interview on FOX television it is time for America to get over it--get over it. She is not the only one who has expressed that point of view. I was in the airport in Chicago last week in a waiting area to get on a plane when someone seated nearby said: Hey, Senator, get over it. Let this President ride off into the sunset. Those were his words: Get over it. It is hard to get over it if you lived it, and many of us in this Chamber did. Last night, there was a vote as to whether we should go forward with the impeachment. All of the Democrats, 50, voted in favor of having the trial, since we received that Article from the House. Five--five--Republicans joined us. Forty-five Republicans voted to end the impeachment proceeding, voting in favor of the point of order that was raised by the junior Senator from Kentucky. I don't know what was going through their minds when they joined that point of order from the Senator from Kentucky. I don't know if it truly was a constitutional issue they were thinking about, whether it was loyalty to Donald Trump, or whether it was fear of Trump's followers in their home States that led them to vote to end the impeachment inquiry. But we should move forward. We should go forward, as Lincoln reminded us, because we cannot escape history, and we certainly shouldn't be party to rewriting history. When almost 50 percent of Trump loyalists refuse to believe that the events 3 weeks ago in this Capitol occurred or, if they occurred, that they had anything to do with President Trump, we need to make a record, a record of fact, not just for our current deliberations but for history. How can anyone who was in this Chamber on January 6 really argue that nothing critical and important and horrific occurred? Do you remember at 2:15, when the Secret Service went up and grabbed the Vice President by his arms and pulled him down, out that door, so they could take him to a secure place? We were stunned by that. I was. They told us to sit here. And do you know what I saw next? Two men, plainclothes security people--I don't know what Agency they were working for--came right down here, right down in the middle of this well. Why do I remember that they were there? Because one of them had an automatic weapon around his neck, in the Senate Chamber. Then we were told by a Capitol policeman who stood in front of us: Sit down. Stay in your seats. We are bringing in your staff and locking the doors. This will be a secure room. Then they closed the doors off to the public, and we sat here for a few minutes. And then the same policeman said: Leave. Evacuate quickly, out the doors. The crowd, the mob, was advancing and getting closer to the Senate Chamber. We went out the back corridor and down the steps. As you go down the steps, there is a window that looks out on the sidewalk near the Capitol Building, and I saw this mob coming at us with Trump flags and American flags and signs--coming right at us. We hurried down those steps and through the long tunnel to, we hoped, a safe location in one of the office buildings nearby. I will never forget it. Do the 45 Senators who voted against the impeachment trial last night still remember it? I certainly hope they do, and I certainly hope they can recall it as they watch the videotapes, the mountain of videotapes of what happened that day. And, of course, I hope we all remember what the Capitol Police went through. For those who say they love law and order, take a look at what they went through when this mob came after them. They were beaten. One gave his life. And we can never forget. So how did this come about? Was this just a spontaneous gathering of people who decided to come to Capitol Hill? Far from it. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, requested his followers to come to Washington on January 6. Why did he pick January 6? Because the Constitution says that is the day when Congress will count the electoral votes and determine who will be the next President. And because President Trump refused to accept the reality of his loss on November 3 and continued in every imaginable way to try to change the numbers coming out of States like Georgia, he called his followers to Washington on that day and held a rally on the Ellipse We have a tape of that rally, and it should be part of the record as to what this President said to his followers who had gathered on that day, how his rhetoric inflamed them. We can see it. It is a matter of record. Then he pointed to the Capitol Building, this building, and told them to come up here. Why? Because we were in the process of counting the electoral votes, which would finally and constitutionally announce that he had lost the election. It was his last desperate gasp to keep the White House, even at the expense of the Constitution and reality. Then the crowd turned and advanced on the Capitol. We have seen those videotapes as well, as they overran the flimsy barricades that were set up in the hopes that they would discourage and stop them. And they broke through windows and doors, came into this building, invading it for the first time since 1814. It was 1814 when the British forces came into this building, burned it, as an invasion. Well, this was a new invasion, an invasion by those who were either inspired by this President or, for whatever political reasons, decided to try to stop this government. It is the first time that has ever happened since 1814. I will never forget it. I am sorry to say that the 45 Senators who said stop the investigation, stop the impeachment, may not have as clear a memory as I do. Each year, we have a commemoration of George Washington's Farewell Address, and a different Member of the Senate is asked to read it on the floor of the Senate. I have to tell you that, honestly, I don't come to the floor and listen carefully. It doesn't have the impact it once had. It is a commemoration which is honorific but doesn't have the real power to create a memory. Doug Jones is a former Senator from Alabama, and he said on Martin Luther King's birthday, or nearby, we should all come to the floor and hear a reading of King's letter from the Birmingham jail, and I think that is appropriate and it is good. How will we remember and commemorate January 6? Maybe it is too soon to think about that, but how can we forget what happened that day? How can we possibly get over it? I don't want to get over it. I want to face it squarely and honestly with the facts. History demands it of us. Those of us who are honored to serve in this Chamber bear a responsibility to keep the facts alive, not let those who wish to ignore them or rewrite history have the last word. We now have a responsibility to go forward with this impeachment trial, to make a record and decide as a U.S. Senate. We owe it to the people we represent. That is for sure. But, more importantly, we owe it to future generations to show them just how fragile a democracy can be when a mob turns on the U.S. Capitol and tries to stop the business of this government. The good news is this. If there is any source of elation, it is this: We returned to the Capitol that same day, January 6, and finished our business of counting the electoral vote. In the early hours of the morning of January 7, Joseph Biden was announced the winner of the Presidency, and just 2 weeks later--2 weeks later to the day--he was sworn in as President of the United States. Our democracy survived this mob that came forward in insurrection against our government, and we are now in the beginning of the second week of the Biden Presidency. He has spoken to the American people and told them we are going to come together; we are going to unify. Bless him for doing that. We owe him this opportunity. We owe it to our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 2,200 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, January 27, marks an anniversary, in a way, of an event that occurred in this Chamber 3 weeks ago, an event on January 6, which some of us will never forget. We are in the midst of preparing for an impeachment trial of President Donald Trump for any responsibility that he bears for that day's events. Some have said we shouldn't do that, that we shouldn't have an impeachment trial. The former U.N. Ambassador and Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, said in an interview on FOX television it is time for America to get over it--get over it. She is not the only one who has expressed that point of view. I was in the airport in Chicago last week in a waiting area to get on a plane when someone seated nearby said: Hey, Senator, get over it. Let this President ride off into the sunset. Those were his words: Get over it. It is hard to get over it if you lived it, and many of us in this Chamber did. Last night, there was a vote as to whether we should go forward with the impeachment. All of the Democrats, 50, voted in favor of having the trial, since we received that Article from the House. Five--five--Republicans joined us. Forty-five Republicans voted to end the impeachment proceeding, voting in favor of the point of order that was raised by the junior Senator from Kentucky. I don't know what was going through their minds when they joined that point of order from the Senator from Kentucky. I don't know if it truly was a constitutional issue they were thinking about, whether it was loyalty to Donald Trump, or whether it was fear of Trump's followers in their home States that led them to vote to end the impeachment inquiry. But we should move forward. We should go forward, as Lincoln reminded us, because we cannot escape history, and we certainly shouldn't be party to rewriting history. When almost 50 percent of Trump loyalists refuse to believe that the events 3 weeks ago in this Capitol occurred or, if they occurred, that they had anything to do with President Trump, we need to make a record, a record of fact, not just for our current deliberations but for history. How can anyone who was in this Chamber on January 6 really argue that nothing critical and important and horrific occurred? Do you remember at 2:15, when the Secret Service went up and grabbed the Vice President by his arms and pulled him down, out that door, so they could take him to a secure place? We were stunned by that. I was. They told us to sit here. And do you know what I saw next? Two men, plainclothes security people--I don't know what Agency they were working for--came right down here, right down in the middle of this well. Why do I remember that they were there? Because one of them had an automatic weapon around his neck, in the Senate Chamber. Then we were told by a Capitol policeman who stood in front of us: Sit down. Stay in your seats. We are bringing in your staff and locking the doors. This will be a secure room. Then they closed the doors off to the public, and we sat here for a few minutes. And then the same policeman said: Leave. Evacuate quickly, out the doors. The crowd, the mob, was advancing and getting closer to the Senate Chamber. We went out the back corridor and down the steps. As you go down the steps, there is a window that looks out on the sidewalk near the Capitol Building, and I saw this mob coming at us with Trump flags and American flags and signs--coming right at us. We hurried down those steps and through the long tunnel to, we hoped, a safe location in one of the office buildings nearby. I will never forget it. Do the 45 Senators who voted against the impeachment trial last night still remember it? I certainly hope they do, and I certainly hope they can recall it as they watch the videotapes, the mountain of videotapes of what happened that day. And, of course, I hope we all remember what the Capitol Police went through. For those who say they love law and order, take a look at what they went through when this mob came after them. They were beaten. One gave his life. And we can never forget. So how did this come about? Was this just a spontaneous gathering of people who decided to come to Capitol Hill? Far from it. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, requested his followers to come to Washington on January 6. Why did he pick January 6? Because the Constitution says that is the day when Congress will count the electoral votes and determine who will be the next President. And because President Trump refused to accept the reality of his loss on November 3 and continued in every imaginable way to try to change the numbers coming out of States like Georgia, he called his followers to Washington on that day and held a rally on the Ellipse We have a tape of that rally, and it should be part of the record as to what this President said to his followers who had gathered on that day, how his rhetoric inflamed them. We can see it. It is a matter of record. Then he pointed to the Capitol Building, this building, and told them to come up here. Why? Because we were in the process of counting the electoral votes, which would finally and constitutionally announce that he had lost the election. It was his last desperate gasp to keep the White House, even at the expense of the Constitution and reality. Then the crowd turned and advanced on the Capitol. We have seen those videotapes as well, as they overran the flimsy barricades that were set up in the hopes that they would discourage and stop them. And they broke through windows and doors, came into this building, invading it for the first time since 1814. It was 1814 when the British forces came into this building, burned it, as an invasion. Well, this was a new invasion, an invasion by those who were either inspired by this President or, for whatever political reasons, decided to try to stop this government. It is the first time that has ever happened since 1814. I will never forget it. I am sorry to say that the 45 Senators who said stop the investigation, stop the impeachment, may not have as clear a memory as I do. Each year, we have a commemoration of George Washington's Farewell Address, and a different Member of the Senate is asked to read it on the floor of the Senate. I have to tell you that, honestly, I don't come to the floor and listen carefully. It doesn't have the impact it once had. It is a commemoration which is honorific but doesn't have the real power to create a memory. Doug Jones is a former Senator from Alabama, and he said on Martin Luther King's birthday, or nearby, we should all come to the floor and hear a reading of King's letter from the Birmingham jail, and I think that is appropriate and it is good. How will we remember and commemorate January 6? Maybe it is too soon to think about that, but how can we forget what happened that day? How can we possibly get over it? I don't want to get over it. I want to face it squarely and honestly with the facts. History demands it of us. Those of us who are honored to serve in this Chamber bear a responsibility to keep the facts alive, not let those who wish to ignore them or rewrite history have the last word. We now have a responsibility to go forward with this impeachment trial, to make a record and decide as a U.S. Senate. We owe it to the people we represent. That is for sure. But, more importantly, we owe it to future generations to show them just how fragile a democracy can be when a mob turns on the U.S. Capitol and tries to stop the business of this government. The good news is this. If there is any source of elation, it is this: We returned to the Capitol that same day, January 6, and finished our business of counting the electoral vote. In the early hours of the morning of January 7, Joseph Biden was announced the winner of the Presidency, and just 2 weeks later--2 weeks later to the day--he was sworn in as President of the United States. Our democracy survived this mob that came forward in insurrection against our government, and we are now in the beginning of the second week of the Biden Presidency. He has spoken to the American people and told them we are going to come together; we are going to unify. Bless him for doing that. We owe him this opportunity. We owe it to our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 2,201 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last Friday, we observed the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade--the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. It is a somber day every year, as we contemplate the millions of lives lost to abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. Gallup has been polling on abortion for decades, and if you look at the polling on the issue, one thing becomes clear: The majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Some believe that abortion should be completely illegal. Some believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. But the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Why is that? Why, despite the best efforts of the far left, do the majority of Americans think there should be at least some restrictions on abortion? I suspect the answer is that every person knows on some level that when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about a baby, a human being. It is not rocket science; it is biology 101. Human moms and dads have human babies. Take one look at an ultrasound, at a baby girl sucking her thumb or a baby boy kicking his feet, and it is pretty hard to argue that is just a clump of cells. I believe that is why, despite years of fierce abortion advocacy from the far left, the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion, because they know--they know--the unborn child is a human being, and they know a human being deserves to be protected even when they are small and weak and vulnerable--especially when they are small and weak and vulnerable. The truth is, advocates of abortion are fighting an uphill battle. It doesn't always feel like that. After all, they have a lot of support from the entertainment industry and magazines and media outlets and Democratic politicians. The pro-abortion left has a lot of money. They have won too many victories, and too many babies have been killed. But despite their money and platform and advantage, in 48 years, advocates for abortion have not won their fight. They have not managed to convince anywhere close to a majority of Americans that abortion is an unqualified good and should be available unrestricted and on demand, and that is because, for all their advantages, they are fighting an unwinnable battle because they are fighting against reality, they are fighting against truth, they are fighting against science, and they are fighting against the knowledge that is written on every human heart, a truth that gets obscured but is hard to completely erase, and that is, every human being has value and deserves to be protected. Last week, I came down to the floor to praise President Biden's call for unity, and I suggested that one way he could show that commitment was bynominating individuals for key posts who represent a majority of Americans instead of the far-left wing of his party. I think several of the President's nominations have demonstrated his commitment to unity. While perhaps not the people I would have chosen, I believe that a number of his nominees will serve Americans well, and I have voted accordingly, casting votes in favor of President Biden's choice for Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense, among others. But unfortunately President Biden has also nominated some individuals who represent the extreme left of the Democratic Party rather than mainstream Americans, and nowhere is that more true than with his radically pro-abortion nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a Member of the House of Representatives, Javier Becerra accumulated an overwhelmingly pro-abortion voting record, even opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion--a procedure so heinous and repulsive, it is difficult even to describe. As attorney general of California, he used his position to advance the pro-abortion cause. On top of that, he has shown a disturbing tendency to use his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As California attorney general, he sued an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor to try to force them to offer health insurance benefits that violate their faith. That is right--he thought it a good use of his time as attorney general to sue an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor. He also enthusiastically sought to enforce a California law that forced crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which overturned the California law because it violated the free speech protection of the First Amendment. It is bad to support evils like abortion. It is worse to not only support an evil but to attempt to force others to participate in it in violation of their consciences. I know the President is a man of faith, which makes it particularly perplexing why he would choose to nominate an individual who has used his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Becerra would have the ability to not only push an extremist abortion agenda but to roll back important progress made to protect individuals' conscience rights. I am disappointed by the President's choice. Javier Becerra's pro-abortion views do not represent the views of the majority of Americans. I am also very disappointed by the announcement that President Biden will overturn the Mexico City policy, which protects taxpayer dollars from being used to finance abortion in other countries. This is not a unifying action. Americans were not clamoring to have their tax dollars start supporting abortions abroad. This is only a priority for the pro-abortion lobby. As I said, I am disappointed in the President's actions, and going forward, I hope he will not let his Presidency be hijacked by abortion extremists. But whatever policies this administration pursues, I and many of my colleagues will continue to work to promote a culture of life in this country. The arc--the arc--of the moral universe is long, but I believe it does bend towards justice. I look forward to the day that we will secure justice for unborn human beings by ensuring that they are protected I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS160 | null | 2,202 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last Friday, we observed the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade--the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. It is a somber day every year, as we contemplate the millions of lives lost to abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. Gallup has been polling on abortion for decades, and if you look at the polling on the issue, one thing becomes clear: The majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Some believe that abortion should be completely illegal. Some believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. But the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Why is that? Why, despite the best efforts of the far left, do the majority of Americans think there should be at least some restrictions on abortion? I suspect the answer is that every person knows on some level that when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about a baby, a human being. It is not rocket science; it is biology 101. Human moms and dads have human babies. Take one look at an ultrasound, at a baby girl sucking her thumb or a baby boy kicking his feet, and it is pretty hard to argue that is just a clump of cells. I believe that is why, despite years of fierce abortion advocacy from the far left, the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion, because they know--they know--the unborn child is a human being, and they know a human being deserves to be protected even when they are small and weak and vulnerable--especially when they are small and weak and vulnerable. The truth is, advocates of abortion are fighting an uphill battle. It doesn't always feel like that. After all, they have a lot of support from the entertainment industry and magazines and media outlets and Democratic politicians. The pro-abortion left has a lot of money. They have won too many victories, and too many babies have been killed. But despite their money and platform and advantage, in 48 years, advocates for abortion have not won their fight. They have not managed to convince anywhere close to a majority of Americans that abortion is an unqualified good and should be available unrestricted and on demand, and that is because, for all their advantages, they are fighting an unwinnable battle because they are fighting against reality, they are fighting against truth, they are fighting against science, and they are fighting against the knowledge that is written on every human heart, a truth that gets obscured but is hard to completely erase, and that is, every human being has value and deserves to be protected. Last week, I came down to the floor to praise President Biden's call for unity, and I suggested that one way he could show that commitment was bynominating individuals for key posts who represent a majority of Americans instead of the far-left wing of his party. I think several of the President's nominations have demonstrated his commitment to unity. While perhaps not the people I would have chosen, I believe that a number of his nominees will serve Americans well, and I have voted accordingly, casting votes in favor of President Biden's choice for Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense, among others. But unfortunately President Biden has also nominated some individuals who represent the extreme left of the Democratic Party rather than mainstream Americans, and nowhere is that more true than with his radically pro-abortion nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a Member of the House of Representatives, Javier Becerra accumulated an overwhelmingly pro-abortion voting record, even opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion--a procedure so heinous and repulsive, it is difficult even to describe. As attorney general of California, he used his position to advance the pro-abortion cause. On top of that, he has shown a disturbing tendency to use his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As California attorney general, he sued an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor to try to force them to offer health insurance benefits that violate their faith. That is right--he thought it a good use of his time as attorney general to sue an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor. He also enthusiastically sought to enforce a California law that forced crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which overturned the California law because it violated the free speech protection of the First Amendment. It is bad to support evils like abortion. It is worse to not only support an evil but to attempt to force others to participate in it in violation of their consciences. I know the President is a man of faith, which makes it particularly perplexing why he would choose to nominate an individual who has used his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Becerra would have the ability to not only push an extremist abortion agenda but to roll back important progress made to protect individuals' conscience rights. I am disappointed by the President's choice. Javier Becerra's pro-abortion views do not represent the views of the majority of Americans. I am also very disappointed by the announcement that President Biden will overturn the Mexico City policy, which protects taxpayer dollars from being used to finance abortion in other countries. This is not a unifying action. Americans were not clamoring to have their tax dollars start supporting abortions abroad. This is only a priority for the pro-abortion lobby. As I said, I am disappointed in the President's actions, and going forward, I hope he will not let his Presidency be hijacked by abortion extremists. But whatever policies this administration pursues, I and many of my colleagues will continue to work to promote a culture of life in this country. The arc--the arc--of the moral universe is long, but I believe it does bend towards justice. I look forward to the day that we will secure justice for unborn human beings by ensuring that they are protected I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS160 | null | 2,203 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last Friday, we observed the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade--the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. It is a somber day every year, as we contemplate the millions of lives lost to abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. Gallup has been polling on abortion for decades, and if you look at the polling on the issue, one thing becomes clear: The majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Some believe that abortion should be completely illegal. Some believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. But the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Why is that? Why, despite the best efforts of the far left, do the majority of Americans think there should be at least some restrictions on abortion? I suspect the answer is that every person knows on some level that when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about a baby, a human being. It is not rocket science; it is biology 101. Human moms and dads have human babies. Take one look at an ultrasound, at a baby girl sucking her thumb or a baby boy kicking his feet, and it is pretty hard to argue that is just a clump of cells. I believe that is why, despite years of fierce abortion advocacy from the far left, the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion, because they know--they know--the unborn child is a human being, and they know a human being deserves to be protected even when they are small and weak and vulnerable--especially when they are small and weak and vulnerable. The truth is, advocates of abortion are fighting an uphill battle. It doesn't always feel like that. After all, they have a lot of support from the entertainment industry and magazines and media outlets and Democratic politicians. The pro-abortion left has a lot of money. They have won too many victories, and too many babies have been killed. But despite their money and platform and advantage, in 48 years, advocates for abortion have not won their fight. They have not managed to convince anywhere close to a majority of Americans that abortion is an unqualified good and should be available unrestricted and on demand, and that is because, for all their advantages, they are fighting an unwinnable battle because they are fighting against reality, they are fighting against truth, they are fighting against science, and they are fighting against the knowledge that is written on every human heart, a truth that gets obscured but is hard to completely erase, and that is, every human being has value and deserves to be protected. Last week, I came down to the floor to praise President Biden's call for unity, and I suggested that one way he could show that commitment was bynominating individuals for key posts who represent a majority of Americans instead of the far-left wing of his party. I think several of the President's nominations have demonstrated his commitment to unity. While perhaps not the people I would have chosen, I believe that a number of his nominees will serve Americans well, and I have voted accordingly, casting votes in favor of President Biden's choice for Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense, among others. But unfortunately President Biden has also nominated some individuals who represent the extreme left of the Democratic Party rather than mainstream Americans, and nowhere is that more true than with his radically pro-abortion nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a Member of the House of Representatives, Javier Becerra accumulated an overwhelmingly pro-abortion voting record, even opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion--a procedure so heinous and repulsive, it is difficult even to describe. As attorney general of California, he used his position to advance the pro-abortion cause. On top of that, he has shown a disturbing tendency to use his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As California attorney general, he sued an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor to try to force them to offer health insurance benefits that violate their faith. That is right--he thought it a good use of his time as attorney general to sue an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor. He also enthusiastically sought to enforce a California law that forced crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which overturned the California law because it violated the free speech protection of the First Amendment. It is bad to support evils like abortion. It is worse to not only support an evil but to attempt to force others to participate in it in violation of their consciences. I know the President is a man of faith, which makes it particularly perplexing why he would choose to nominate an individual who has used his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Becerra would have the ability to not only push an extremist abortion agenda but to roll back important progress made to protect individuals' conscience rights. I am disappointed by the President's choice. Javier Becerra's pro-abortion views do not represent the views of the majority of Americans. I am also very disappointed by the announcement that President Biden will overturn the Mexico City policy, which protects taxpayer dollars from being used to finance abortion in other countries. This is not a unifying action. Americans were not clamoring to have their tax dollars start supporting abortions abroad. This is only a priority for the pro-abortion lobby. As I said, I am disappointed in the President's actions, and going forward, I hope he will not let his Presidency be hijacked by abortion extremists. But whatever policies this administration pursues, I and many of my colleagues will continue to work to promote a culture of life in this country. The arc--the arc--of the moral universe is long, but I believe it does bend towards justice. I look forward to the day that we will secure justice for unborn human beings by ensuring that they are protected I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS160 | null | 2,204 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as we move through what is appearing to be a choppy start to the 117th Congress, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the standards that guide our work here. The mandate that we have does not come from the 24-hour news cycle or from lobbyists or advocacy groups, but it comes, very simply, from the Constitution. It is the foundation of the rule of law, our Nation's Constitution, and it really serves as a pretty good policymaking guideline. The American people are looking at what is going on here, and they see the cracks that Washington has made in the foundation of this Constitution. These realizations have eroded their confidence in our ability as a body to perform the basic functions of government without devolving into partisan chaos when faced with disagreements. Many times I will hear Tennesseans say: What happened to robust political debate? What happened to being able to agreeably disagree and have a discussion? Are those days totally lost, or can we return to them? They are asking themselves how many shortcuts--like Executive orders--Washington is going to take before the shortcut becomes the rule or the norm and how many times can Washington chip away at the standards that govern our country before those standards start to crumble or are not relevant. Restoring the trust of the American people will not be easy because this fundamental lack of faith in our institutions has caused Americans to question their very safety and security in the physical space and also in the virtual world that they have been forced into by the COVID-19 pandemic. I like to say we have a lot of security moms who are out there--moms and grandmoms like me--and, quite frankly, they are out in full force, alongside millions of other Americans who now have cause to wonder if their own government will bother making their security a priority. What about their communities? What about their neighborhoods? What about the universities where their children go to school? What is going to be done about riots? What about the virtual space? As they have seen their children move to online school, more of their daily functional life and their transactional life has moved online. How do they keep their families safe? How do they protect their rights to privacy? In the physical space, yesterday we got the good news that a Federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a nationwide pause on most deportations. That pause was mandated by a DHS memo signed by the Acting Secretary on day one of the Biden administration--not such a great start for the administration's immigration policy team, but the American people will benefit from having the time that has come to them to ask questions about proposed shifts in existing policy. People want to be safe. I would like to just stipulate for the record that immigration law is very complex. While most Americans aren't experts in the finer points of immigration law, they do have and most of us have a very common touchstone that we relate to; that is, having a secure border. This should be a basic concept--let's secure the border; let's secure our country--but somehow we have managed to politicize that point that advocates at the highest levels of the Federal Government--for what? A weakened border. Just imagine that. You have individuals at the highest level of the Federal Government who are saying: Let's weaken our border. That is stunning, absolutely stunning to Tennesseans. Why would you not protect your border? Why would you not want to know who is coming into your country? Why should I be forced to accept a lax border? Why should I be accepting of allowing drug cartels to run those drugs into the country? Why should I be told I should accept human trafficking; I should accept gangs; I should accept sex traffickers coming in across the border? When we have a weak border, this is what you get. Every town--every town--becomes a border town. Every State becomes a border State because of the impacts--the negative impacts--of drug trafficking, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the toll that that takes on our communities. Last week, I introduced two key pieces of legislation that attack specific vulnerabilities in our body of immigration law that thousands of bad actors use to game the system every year. The first is the Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal ImmigrantsAct. It does exactly what it sounds like. It blocks certain Federal funds from reaching the coffers of sanctuary States. This includes States that defy Federal immigration law or that allow individuals to obtain a driver license without providing proof that they are here legally or without providing proof that they are who they claim to be. This is no small penalty, and here is why. In 2020, our Nation had 15 States plus the District of Columbia that have decided to give illegal immigrants a valid State-issued ID, a driver license. These 15 States and DC got $53 million in JAG grants from the Department of Justice. These are funds--these are Justice Assistance Grants that are given to local law enforcement and criminal justice projects to do what? Enforce the law. So if you are not going to enforce the law, why should you get the money? Those funds should go to entities that have said: We will abide by the rule of law. That is where those funds should go. Now, the second bill is the Ban Birth Tourism Act. This would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit pregnant foreigners from obtaining a temporary visitor visa they could use to enter the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth here. Yes, you heard me right. There is a loophole in the law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because of this, we have some pregnant foreigners, primarily from Russia and China, who circumvent the law, and they get a temporary visitor visa, and they come here working with some of this multimillion-dollar-a-year birth tourism industry. They get coached. They come here. They go to a facility. They give birth. The child becomes a citizen, and then they return. As I said, primarily these are wealthy Russians and wealthy Chinese. Our citizenship is not for sale. No, indeed. It is hard-fought. It is hard-won. It is hard-kept. The American people are right to expect better than this. Tennesseans want to see something done about this. That is why I, once again, have filed this legislation. The American people are not unreasonable. They do not lack compassion. They just don't understand why officials who are charged with upholding the law would act in their official capacity to undermine something as basic as border security, as basic as national security. We have a lot of security moms out there who understand that it is no small task keeping things secure at home. All of these security moms out there know that there are plenty of threats online--threats that they cannot see, but they know that there are a lot of these threats that come into their homes and onto their computer screens and onto the devices of their children because of a lack of privacy online. How we curate and protect our virtual use, as I call it, is critically important because it defines who we are to the people who we do not see in person. And as I mentioned earlier, more of our functional and transactional life is now online. So tomorrow, to mark National Data Privacy Day, I will once again reintroduce the BROWSER Act. Mr. President, as you and I served in the House together, I know you remember how I would introduce this bill, the BROWSER Act, to secure online privacy for millions of Americans. Now, at its heart, this is an effort to inject awareness, transparency, and accountability into the relationship between technology platforms and their users. This legislation sets up a very basic Federal compliance framework that tech companies can use as a guide to update their privacy policies online, make it something that is going to give you the ability to say: This is information that I want to share. It would require companies to secure an opt-in from consumers before collecting their sensitive data. And for less sensitive information, you, the consumer, would have the ability to opt out and not share that browsing history with that company. Companies would not be able to deny you service if you want to practice your right to privacy. That makes common sense. It happens in the physical space every single day, and it should also be a right reserved to the individual in the virtual space. This also would put the Federal Trade Commission, our online privacy regulator, in charge of watching what is happening in the virtual space, applying these rules equally across the entire internet ecosystem. A right to privacy, being secure in our communities and our homes, is something that not only Tennesseans but millions of Americans are wanting to see. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS161 | null | 2,205 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as we move through what is appearing to be a choppy start to the 117th Congress, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the standards that guide our work here. The mandate that we have does not come from the 24-hour news cycle or from lobbyists or advocacy groups, but it comes, very simply, from the Constitution. It is the foundation of the rule of law, our Nation's Constitution, and it really serves as a pretty good policymaking guideline. The American people are looking at what is going on here, and they see the cracks that Washington has made in the foundation of this Constitution. These realizations have eroded their confidence in our ability as a body to perform the basic functions of government without devolving into partisan chaos when faced with disagreements. Many times I will hear Tennesseans say: What happened to robust political debate? What happened to being able to agreeably disagree and have a discussion? Are those days totally lost, or can we return to them? They are asking themselves how many shortcuts--like Executive orders--Washington is going to take before the shortcut becomes the rule or the norm and how many times can Washington chip away at the standards that govern our country before those standards start to crumble or are not relevant. Restoring the trust of the American people will not be easy because this fundamental lack of faith in our institutions has caused Americans to question their very safety and security in the physical space and also in the virtual world that they have been forced into by the COVID-19 pandemic. I like to say we have a lot of security moms who are out there--moms and grandmoms like me--and, quite frankly, they are out in full force, alongside millions of other Americans who now have cause to wonder if their own government will bother making their security a priority. What about their communities? What about their neighborhoods? What about the universities where their children go to school? What is going to be done about riots? What about the virtual space? As they have seen their children move to online school, more of their daily functional life and their transactional life has moved online. How do they keep their families safe? How do they protect their rights to privacy? In the physical space, yesterday we got the good news that a Federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a nationwide pause on most deportations. That pause was mandated by a DHS memo signed by the Acting Secretary on day one of the Biden administration--not such a great start for the administration's immigration policy team, but the American people will benefit from having the time that has come to them to ask questions about proposed shifts in existing policy. People want to be safe. I would like to just stipulate for the record that immigration law is very complex. While most Americans aren't experts in the finer points of immigration law, they do have and most of us have a very common touchstone that we relate to; that is, having a secure border. This should be a basic concept--let's secure the border; let's secure our country--but somehow we have managed to politicize that point that advocates at the highest levels of the Federal Government--for what? A weakened border. Just imagine that. You have individuals at the highest level of the Federal Government who are saying: Let's weaken our border. That is stunning, absolutely stunning to Tennesseans. Why would you not protect your border? Why would you not want to know who is coming into your country? Why should I be forced to accept a lax border? Why should I be accepting of allowing drug cartels to run those drugs into the country? Why should I be told I should accept human trafficking; I should accept gangs; I should accept sex traffickers coming in across the border? When we have a weak border, this is what you get. Every town--every town--becomes a border town. Every State becomes a border State because of the impacts--the negative impacts--of drug trafficking, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the toll that that takes on our communities. Last week, I introduced two key pieces of legislation that attack specific vulnerabilities in our body of immigration law that thousands of bad actors use to game the system every year. The first is the Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal ImmigrantsAct. It does exactly what it sounds like. It blocks certain Federal funds from reaching the coffers of sanctuary States. This includes States that defy Federal immigration law or that allow individuals to obtain a driver license without providing proof that they are here legally or without providing proof that they are who they claim to be. This is no small penalty, and here is why. In 2020, our Nation had 15 States plus the District of Columbia that have decided to give illegal immigrants a valid State-issued ID, a driver license. These 15 States and DC got $53 million in JAG grants from the Department of Justice. These are funds--these are Justice Assistance Grants that are given to local law enforcement and criminal justice projects to do what? Enforce the law. So if you are not going to enforce the law, why should you get the money? Those funds should go to entities that have said: We will abide by the rule of law. That is where those funds should go. Now, the second bill is the Ban Birth Tourism Act. This would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit pregnant foreigners from obtaining a temporary visitor visa they could use to enter the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth here. Yes, you heard me right. There is a loophole in the law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because of this, we have some pregnant foreigners, primarily from Russia and China, who circumvent the law, and they get a temporary visitor visa, and they come here working with some of this multimillion-dollar-a-year birth tourism industry. They get coached. They come here. They go to a facility. They give birth. The child becomes a citizen, and then they return. As I said, primarily these are wealthy Russians and wealthy Chinese. Our citizenship is not for sale. No, indeed. It is hard-fought. It is hard-won. It is hard-kept. The American people are right to expect better than this. Tennesseans want to see something done about this. That is why I, once again, have filed this legislation. The American people are not unreasonable. They do not lack compassion. They just don't understand why officials who are charged with upholding the law would act in their official capacity to undermine something as basic as border security, as basic as national security. We have a lot of security moms out there who understand that it is no small task keeping things secure at home. All of these security moms out there know that there are plenty of threats online--threats that they cannot see, but they know that there are a lot of these threats that come into their homes and onto their computer screens and onto the devices of their children because of a lack of privacy online. How we curate and protect our virtual use, as I call it, is critically important because it defines who we are to the people who we do not see in person. And as I mentioned earlier, more of our functional and transactional life is now online. So tomorrow, to mark National Data Privacy Day, I will once again reintroduce the BROWSER Act. Mr. President, as you and I served in the House together, I know you remember how I would introduce this bill, the BROWSER Act, to secure online privacy for millions of Americans. Now, at its heart, this is an effort to inject awareness, transparency, and accountability into the relationship between technology platforms and their users. This legislation sets up a very basic Federal compliance framework that tech companies can use as a guide to update their privacy policies online, make it something that is going to give you the ability to say: This is information that I want to share. It would require companies to secure an opt-in from consumers before collecting their sensitive data. And for less sensitive information, you, the consumer, would have the ability to opt out and not share that browsing history with that company. Companies would not be able to deny you service if you want to practice your right to privacy. That makes common sense. It happens in the physical space every single day, and it should also be a right reserved to the individual in the virtual space. This also would put the Federal Trade Commission, our online privacy regulator, in charge of watching what is happening in the virtual space, applying these rules equally across the entire internet ecosystem. A right to privacy, being secure in our communities and our homes, is something that not only Tennesseans but millions of Americans are wanting to see. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS161 | null | 2,206 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as we move through what is appearing to be a choppy start to the 117th Congress, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the standards that guide our work here. The mandate that we have does not come from the 24-hour news cycle or from lobbyists or advocacy groups, but it comes, very simply, from the Constitution. It is the foundation of the rule of law, our Nation's Constitution, and it really serves as a pretty good policymaking guideline. The American people are looking at what is going on here, and they see the cracks that Washington has made in the foundation of this Constitution. These realizations have eroded their confidence in our ability as a body to perform the basic functions of government without devolving into partisan chaos when faced with disagreements. Many times I will hear Tennesseans say: What happened to robust political debate? What happened to being able to agreeably disagree and have a discussion? Are those days totally lost, or can we return to them? They are asking themselves how many shortcuts--like Executive orders--Washington is going to take before the shortcut becomes the rule or the norm and how many times can Washington chip away at the standards that govern our country before those standards start to crumble or are not relevant. Restoring the trust of the American people will not be easy because this fundamental lack of faith in our institutions has caused Americans to question their very safety and security in the physical space and also in the virtual world that they have been forced into by the COVID-19 pandemic. I like to say we have a lot of security moms who are out there--moms and grandmoms like me--and, quite frankly, they are out in full force, alongside millions of other Americans who now have cause to wonder if their own government will bother making their security a priority. What about their communities? What about their neighborhoods? What about the universities where their children go to school? What is going to be done about riots? What about the virtual space? As they have seen their children move to online school, more of their daily functional life and their transactional life has moved online. How do they keep their families safe? How do they protect their rights to privacy? In the physical space, yesterday we got the good news that a Federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a nationwide pause on most deportations. That pause was mandated by a DHS memo signed by the Acting Secretary on day one of the Biden administration--not such a great start for the administration's immigration policy team, but the American people will benefit from having the time that has come to them to ask questions about proposed shifts in existing policy. People want to be safe. I would like to just stipulate for the record that immigration law is very complex. While most Americans aren't experts in the finer points of immigration law, they do have and most of us have a very common touchstone that we relate to; that is, having a secure border. This should be a basic concept--let's secure the border; let's secure our country--but somehow we have managed to politicize that point that advocates at the highest levels of the Federal Government--for what? A weakened border. Just imagine that. You have individuals at the highest level of the Federal Government who are saying: Let's weaken our border. That is stunning, absolutely stunning to Tennesseans. Why would you not protect your border? Why would you not want to know who is coming into your country? Why should I be forced to accept a lax border? Why should I be accepting of allowing drug cartels to run those drugs into the country? Why should I be told I should accept human trafficking; I should accept gangs; I should accept sex traffickers coming in across the border? When we have a weak border, this is what you get. Every town--every town--becomes a border town. Every State becomes a border State because of the impacts--the negative impacts--of drug trafficking, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the toll that that takes on our communities. Last week, I introduced two key pieces of legislation that attack specific vulnerabilities in our body of immigration law that thousands of bad actors use to game the system every year. The first is the Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal ImmigrantsAct. It does exactly what it sounds like. It blocks certain Federal funds from reaching the coffers of sanctuary States. This includes States that defy Federal immigration law or that allow individuals to obtain a driver license without providing proof that they are here legally or without providing proof that they are who they claim to be. This is no small penalty, and here is why. In 2020, our Nation had 15 States plus the District of Columbia that have decided to give illegal immigrants a valid State-issued ID, a driver license. These 15 States and DC got $53 million in JAG grants from the Department of Justice. These are funds--these are Justice Assistance Grants that are given to local law enforcement and criminal justice projects to do what? Enforce the law. So if you are not going to enforce the law, why should you get the money? Those funds should go to entities that have said: We will abide by the rule of law. That is where those funds should go. Now, the second bill is the Ban Birth Tourism Act. This would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit pregnant foreigners from obtaining a temporary visitor visa they could use to enter the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth here. Yes, you heard me right. There is a loophole in the law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because of this, we have some pregnant foreigners, primarily from Russia and China, who circumvent the law, and they get a temporary visitor visa, and they come here working with some of this multimillion-dollar-a-year birth tourism industry. They get coached. They come here. They go to a facility. They give birth. The child becomes a citizen, and then they return. As I said, primarily these are wealthy Russians and wealthy Chinese. Our citizenship is not for sale. No, indeed. It is hard-fought. It is hard-won. It is hard-kept. The American people are right to expect better than this. Tennesseans want to see something done about this. That is why I, once again, have filed this legislation. The American people are not unreasonable. They do not lack compassion. They just don't understand why officials who are charged with upholding the law would act in their official capacity to undermine something as basic as border security, as basic as national security. We have a lot of security moms out there who understand that it is no small task keeping things secure at home. All of these security moms out there know that there are plenty of threats online--threats that they cannot see, but they know that there are a lot of these threats that come into their homes and onto their computer screens and onto the devices of their children because of a lack of privacy online. How we curate and protect our virtual use, as I call it, is critically important because it defines who we are to the people who we do not see in person. And as I mentioned earlier, more of our functional and transactional life is now online. So tomorrow, to mark National Data Privacy Day, I will once again reintroduce the BROWSER Act. Mr. President, as you and I served in the House together, I know you remember how I would introduce this bill, the BROWSER Act, to secure online privacy for millions of Americans. Now, at its heart, this is an effort to inject awareness, transparency, and accountability into the relationship between technology platforms and their users. This legislation sets up a very basic Federal compliance framework that tech companies can use as a guide to update their privacy policies online, make it something that is going to give you the ability to say: This is information that I want to share. It would require companies to secure an opt-in from consumers before collecting their sensitive data. And for less sensitive information, you, the consumer, would have the ability to opt out and not share that browsing history with that company. Companies would not be able to deny you service if you want to practice your right to privacy. That makes common sense. It happens in the physical space every single day, and it should also be a right reserved to the individual in the virtual space. This also would put the Federal Trade Commission, our online privacy regulator, in charge of watching what is happening in the virtual space, applying these rules equally across the entire internet ecosystem. A right to privacy, being secure in our communities and our homes, is something that not only Tennesseans but millions of Americans are wanting to see. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS161 | null | 2,207 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as we move through what is appearing to be a choppy start to the 117th Congress, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the standards that guide our work here. The mandate that we have does not come from the 24-hour news cycle or from lobbyists or advocacy groups, but it comes, very simply, from the Constitution. It is the foundation of the rule of law, our Nation's Constitution, and it really serves as a pretty good policymaking guideline. The American people are looking at what is going on here, and they see the cracks that Washington has made in the foundation of this Constitution. These realizations have eroded their confidence in our ability as a body to perform the basic functions of government without devolving into partisan chaos when faced with disagreements. Many times I will hear Tennesseans say: What happened to robust political debate? What happened to being able to agreeably disagree and have a discussion? Are those days totally lost, or can we return to them? They are asking themselves how many shortcuts--like Executive orders--Washington is going to take before the shortcut becomes the rule or the norm and how many times can Washington chip away at the standards that govern our country before those standards start to crumble or are not relevant. Restoring the trust of the American people will not be easy because this fundamental lack of faith in our institutions has caused Americans to question their very safety and security in the physical space and also in the virtual world that they have been forced into by the COVID-19 pandemic. I like to say we have a lot of security moms who are out there--moms and grandmoms like me--and, quite frankly, they are out in full force, alongside millions of other Americans who now have cause to wonder if their own government will bother making their security a priority. What about their communities? What about their neighborhoods? What about the universities where their children go to school? What is going to be done about riots? What about the virtual space? As they have seen their children move to online school, more of their daily functional life and their transactional life has moved online. How do they keep their families safe? How do they protect their rights to privacy? In the physical space, yesterday we got the good news that a Federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a nationwide pause on most deportations. That pause was mandated by a DHS memo signed by the Acting Secretary on day one of the Biden administration--not such a great start for the administration's immigration policy team, but the American people will benefit from having the time that has come to them to ask questions about proposed shifts in existing policy. People want to be safe. I would like to just stipulate for the record that immigration law is very complex. While most Americans aren't experts in the finer points of immigration law, they do have and most of us have a very common touchstone that we relate to; that is, having a secure border. This should be a basic concept--let's secure the border; let's secure our country--but somehow we have managed to politicize that point that advocates at the highest levels of the Federal Government--for what? A weakened border. Just imagine that. You have individuals at the highest level of the Federal Government who are saying: Let's weaken our border. That is stunning, absolutely stunning to Tennesseans. Why would you not protect your border? Why would you not want to know who is coming into your country? Why should I be forced to accept a lax border? Why should I be accepting of allowing drug cartels to run those drugs into the country? Why should I be told I should accept human trafficking; I should accept gangs; I should accept sex traffickers coming in across the border? When we have a weak border, this is what you get. Every town--every town--becomes a border town. Every State becomes a border State because of the impacts--the negative impacts--of drug trafficking, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the toll that that takes on our communities. Last week, I introduced two key pieces of legislation that attack specific vulnerabilities in our body of immigration law that thousands of bad actors use to game the system every year. The first is the Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal ImmigrantsAct. It does exactly what it sounds like. It blocks certain Federal funds from reaching the coffers of sanctuary States. This includes States that defy Federal immigration law or that allow individuals to obtain a driver license without providing proof that they are here legally or without providing proof that they are who they claim to be. This is no small penalty, and here is why. In 2020, our Nation had 15 States plus the District of Columbia that have decided to give illegal immigrants a valid State-issued ID, a driver license. These 15 States and DC got $53 million in JAG grants from the Department of Justice. These are funds--these are Justice Assistance Grants that are given to local law enforcement and criminal justice projects to do what? Enforce the law. So if you are not going to enforce the law, why should you get the money? Those funds should go to entities that have said: We will abide by the rule of law. That is where those funds should go. Now, the second bill is the Ban Birth Tourism Act. This would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit pregnant foreigners from obtaining a temporary visitor visa they could use to enter the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth here. Yes, you heard me right. There is a loophole in the law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because of this, we have some pregnant foreigners, primarily from Russia and China, who circumvent the law, and they get a temporary visitor visa, and they come here working with some of this multimillion-dollar-a-year birth tourism industry. They get coached. They come here. They go to a facility. They give birth. The child becomes a citizen, and then they return. As I said, primarily these are wealthy Russians and wealthy Chinese. Our citizenship is not for sale. No, indeed. It is hard-fought. It is hard-won. It is hard-kept. The American people are right to expect better than this. Tennesseans want to see something done about this. That is why I, once again, have filed this legislation. The American people are not unreasonable. They do not lack compassion. They just don't understand why officials who are charged with upholding the law would act in their official capacity to undermine something as basic as border security, as basic as national security. We have a lot of security moms out there who understand that it is no small task keeping things secure at home. All of these security moms out there know that there are plenty of threats online--threats that they cannot see, but they know that there are a lot of these threats that come into their homes and onto their computer screens and onto the devices of their children because of a lack of privacy online. How we curate and protect our virtual use, as I call it, is critically important because it defines who we are to the people who we do not see in person. And as I mentioned earlier, more of our functional and transactional life is now online. So tomorrow, to mark National Data Privacy Day, I will once again reintroduce the BROWSER Act. Mr. President, as you and I served in the House together, I know you remember how I would introduce this bill, the BROWSER Act, to secure online privacy for millions of Americans. Now, at its heart, this is an effort to inject awareness, transparency, and accountability into the relationship between technology platforms and their users. This legislation sets up a very basic Federal compliance framework that tech companies can use as a guide to update their privacy policies online, make it something that is going to give you the ability to say: This is information that I want to share. It would require companies to secure an opt-in from consumers before collecting their sensitive data. And for less sensitive information, you, the consumer, would have the ability to opt out and not share that browsing history with that company. Companies would not be able to deny you service if you want to practice your right to privacy. That makes common sense. It happens in the physical space every single day, and it should also be a right reserved to the individual in the virtual space. This also would put the Federal Trade Commission, our online privacy regulator, in charge of watching what is happening in the virtual space, applying these rules equally across the entire internet ecosystem. A right to privacy, being secure in our communities and our homes, is something that not only Tennesseans but millions of Americans are wanting to see. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS161 | null | 2,208 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as we move through what is appearing to be a choppy start to the 117th Congress, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the standards that guide our work here. The mandate that we have does not come from the 24-hour news cycle or from lobbyists or advocacy groups, but it comes, very simply, from the Constitution. It is the foundation of the rule of law, our Nation's Constitution, and it really serves as a pretty good policymaking guideline. The American people are looking at what is going on here, and they see the cracks that Washington has made in the foundation of this Constitution. These realizations have eroded their confidence in our ability as a body to perform the basic functions of government without devolving into partisan chaos when faced with disagreements. Many times I will hear Tennesseans say: What happened to robust political debate? What happened to being able to agreeably disagree and have a discussion? Are those days totally lost, or can we return to them? They are asking themselves how many shortcuts--like Executive orders--Washington is going to take before the shortcut becomes the rule or the norm and how many times can Washington chip away at the standards that govern our country before those standards start to crumble or are not relevant. Restoring the trust of the American people will not be easy because this fundamental lack of faith in our institutions has caused Americans to question their very safety and security in the physical space and also in the virtual world that they have been forced into by the COVID-19 pandemic. I like to say we have a lot of security moms who are out there--moms and grandmoms like me--and, quite frankly, they are out in full force, alongside millions of other Americans who now have cause to wonder if their own government will bother making their security a priority. What about their communities? What about their neighborhoods? What about the universities where their children go to school? What is going to be done about riots? What about the virtual space? As they have seen their children move to online school, more of their daily functional life and their transactional life has moved online. How do they keep their families safe? How do they protect their rights to privacy? In the physical space, yesterday we got the good news that a Federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a nationwide pause on most deportations. That pause was mandated by a DHS memo signed by the Acting Secretary on day one of the Biden administration--not such a great start for the administration's immigration policy team, but the American people will benefit from having the time that has come to them to ask questions about proposed shifts in existing policy. People want to be safe. I would like to just stipulate for the record that immigration law is very complex. While most Americans aren't experts in the finer points of immigration law, they do have and most of us have a very common touchstone that we relate to; that is, having a secure border. This should be a basic concept--let's secure the border; let's secure our country--but somehow we have managed to politicize that point that advocates at the highest levels of the Federal Government--for what? A weakened border. Just imagine that. You have individuals at the highest level of the Federal Government who are saying: Let's weaken our border. That is stunning, absolutely stunning to Tennesseans. Why would you not protect your border? Why would you not want to know who is coming into your country? Why should I be forced to accept a lax border? Why should I be accepting of allowing drug cartels to run those drugs into the country? Why should I be told I should accept human trafficking; I should accept gangs; I should accept sex traffickers coming in across the border? When we have a weak border, this is what you get. Every town--every town--becomes a border town. Every State becomes a border State because of the impacts--the negative impacts--of drug trafficking, sex trafficking, human trafficking, and the toll that that takes on our communities. Last week, I introduced two key pieces of legislation that attack specific vulnerabilities in our body of immigration law that thousands of bad actors use to game the system every year. The first is the Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal ImmigrantsAct. It does exactly what it sounds like. It blocks certain Federal funds from reaching the coffers of sanctuary States. This includes States that defy Federal immigration law or that allow individuals to obtain a driver license without providing proof that they are here legally or without providing proof that they are who they claim to be. This is no small penalty, and here is why. In 2020, our Nation had 15 States plus the District of Columbia that have decided to give illegal immigrants a valid State-issued ID, a driver license. These 15 States and DC got $53 million in JAG grants from the Department of Justice. These are funds--these are Justice Assistance Grants that are given to local law enforcement and criminal justice projects to do what? Enforce the law. So if you are not going to enforce the law, why should you get the money? Those funds should go to entities that have said: We will abide by the rule of law. That is where those funds should go. Now, the second bill is the Ban Birth Tourism Act. This would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit pregnant foreigners from obtaining a temporary visitor visa they could use to enter the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth here. Yes, you heard me right. There is a loophole in the law, in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because of this, we have some pregnant foreigners, primarily from Russia and China, who circumvent the law, and they get a temporary visitor visa, and they come here working with some of this multimillion-dollar-a-year birth tourism industry. They get coached. They come here. They go to a facility. They give birth. The child becomes a citizen, and then they return. As I said, primarily these are wealthy Russians and wealthy Chinese. Our citizenship is not for sale. No, indeed. It is hard-fought. It is hard-won. It is hard-kept. The American people are right to expect better than this. Tennesseans want to see something done about this. That is why I, once again, have filed this legislation. The American people are not unreasonable. They do not lack compassion. They just don't understand why officials who are charged with upholding the law would act in their official capacity to undermine something as basic as border security, as basic as national security. We have a lot of security moms out there who understand that it is no small task keeping things secure at home. All of these security moms out there know that there are plenty of threats online--threats that they cannot see, but they know that there are a lot of these threats that come into their homes and onto their computer screens and onto the devices of their children because of a lack of privacy online. How we curate and protect our virtual use, as I call it, is critically important because it defines who we are to the people who we do not see in person. And as I mentioned earlier, more of our functional and transactional life is now online. So tomorrow, to mark National Data Privacy Day, I will once again reintroduce the BROWSER Act. Mr. President, as you and I served in the House together, I know you remember how I would introduce this bill, the BROWSER Act, to secure online privacy for millions of Americans. Now, at its heart, this is an effort to inject awareness, transparency, and accountability into the relationship between technology platforms and their users. This legislation sets up a very basic Federal compliance framework that tech companies can use as a guide to update their privacy policies online, make it something that is going to give you the ability to say: This is information that I want to share. It would require companies to secure an opt-in from consumers before collecting their sensitive data. And for less sensitive information, you, the consumer, would have the ability to opt out and not share that browsing history with that company. Companies would not be able to deny you service if you want to practice your right to privacy. That makes common sense. It happens in the physical space every single day, and it should also be a right reserved to the individual in the virtual space. This also would put the Federal Trade Commission, our online privacy regulator, in charge of watching what is happening in the virtual space, applying these rules equally across the entire internet ecosystem. A right to privacy, being secure in our communities and our homes, is something that not only Tennesseans but millions of Americans are wanting to see. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS161 | null | 2,209 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday afternoon we confirmed another one of President Biden's Cabinet nominees. Antony Blinken has led an impressive career in the public sector and is well versed in both the vast responsibilities of the State Department, as well as the diplomatic challenges we will face in the months and years ahead, the most important of which is China, but it is not China alone. While Mr. Blinken and I have policy differences--some of them very serious--I have confidence in his ability to represent our Nation on the global stage. It is important for a new President, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat, to have qualified, Senate-confirmed officials in their Cabinet without delay. Over the past week, we have worked to confirm nominees for some of the most critical Federal Departments and Agencies. The Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, as well as the Director of National Intelligence, have each been confirmed by the Senate with broad bipartisan support. And we will continue to process more of the President's nominees in the days ahead. Four years ago, our Democratic colleagues approached President Trump's nominees with a grab bag of antics, including everything from intentional delays to brazen theatrics. In most cases, this behavior wasn't a reflection on the nominee or their qualifications, but of our colleagues' antipathy toward President Trump. Clearly we are adopting a different approach, and I hope it is one that will deescalate these battles and one that will serve the national interest rather than harm it. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have tried to evaluate nominees based on their qualifications, their integrity, and their ability to carry out the responsibilities for the job they have been nominated for, and I will continue to either support or oppose nominees based on those merits and those criteria, not based on the party of the President | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS163 | null | 2,210 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today the world comes together to remember the horrors of the Holocaust. We honor the 6 million Jews and 5 million others--Roma, Afro-Germans, gay men and women, people with disabilities and more--whom the Nazis brutally murdered. And we stand in awe and celebration of those brave souls who managed to survive. It is difficult to comprehend the terror that took place in Europe between 1939 and 1945, but we carry on an obligation to those who perished and those who survived to prevent further genocide and mass atrocities. It is critical that we understand what happened to them so we can prevent it from ever happening again. One of the most important things to understand about the Holocaust is that while a limited group of particularly evil monsters orchestrated it, they could not have succeeded without the active or tacit support of millions of average people. Men and women agreed to turn over their neighbors, patrol the ghettos, drive the cattle cars, guard the death camps, and line people up to shoot them down. Men and women decided to avert their gaze and do nothing to stop the atrocities. I don't believe that all those people were born villains. I think they were taught by their communities to adopt a level of anti-Semitism and prejudice that likely would have been recognizable to many of us today and that the Nazi propaganda masters exploited those feelings. That terrifies me because it means that the Holocaust was not an anomaly. It means that under the right conditions, a similar atrocity could happen again. The hatred that gave rise to the Holocaust is still very much alive. The Anti-Defamation League's 2014 Global Index of Anti-Semitism found that more than 1 billion people--nearly one in eight--around the world harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. Over 30 percent of those surveyed said that it was ``probably true'' that Jews had too much control over financial markets, that Jews think they are better than other people, that Jews are disloyal to their country, and that people hate Jews because of the way that Jews behave. Such sentiments often translate into violence, leading 40 percent of European Jews to report in 2018 that they lived in daily fear of being physically attacked. Sadly, these trends bear out closer to home too. Jews make up fewer than 3 percent of the American population, but the majority of reported religion-based hate crimes targeted Jewish people or institutions. In 2019, the ADL reported that anti-Semitism in America had hit a four-decade high. According to the 2020 survey by the American Jewish Committee, more than one-third of American Jews say they have been verbally or physically assaulted during the past 5 years simply because they are Jewish. I believe that the world looks to the United States for moral leadership. When we allow anti-Semitism or racism or other kinds of intolerance to flourish here, other countries take that as a license to do the same. Moreover, we need to recognize the nexus between and networking among those who traffic in hate and conspiracies in the United States and other like-minded individuals and groups around the globe. Combating the most dangerous forms of this bigotry will require understanding the ways in which such groups are reinforcing and learning from each other. Unfortunately, the last 4 years--beginning with White nationalists chanting ``Jews will not replace us'' in Charlottesville and ending with an insurrectionist wearing a ``Camp Auschwitz'' sweatshirt while storming the Capitol--are a dark stain on this country's record. By allowing such vicious hatred to take root and to grow, we fail ourselves, and we fail the rest of the world. Now we have the opportunity to redeem ourselves--to become leaders once more in the fight to eliminate anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred around the globe. It will not be easy, but it is something we have to do, and it starts with education. In the ADL's 2014 global survey, 35 percent of the respondents had never heard of the Holocaust, and 28 percent of those who did know of it believed that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust had been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, the AJC's 2020 Survey of the General Public found that nearly one-quarter of Americans know nothing or not much about the Holocaust, and nearly one-half are not even sure what the term ``anti-Semitism'' means. How can we hope to learn as a society from the horrors of the Holocaust if so many people do not know or do not believe that it happened? How can we root out anti-Semitism if almost half of us don't understand what it is? We must educate the next generation on the horrors of the Holocaust and the dangers of intolerance. I am proud to have led efforts to provide the full funding of a bill, which our Presiding Officer was very much involved with, the Never Again Education Act, and I thank our Presiding Officer for her leadership on this issue. That bill expanded the reach of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's world-renowned education program. This will allow educators across the country from K-12 through college to access age-appropriate curriculum on the Holocaust. It will also bolster the Holocaust Memorial Museum's continued collection and use of survivor testimony so that tomorrow's leaders will see and hear for themselves why we must never again allow hatred to thrive. At the same time, we must fight against Holocaust denial in any form in any part of the world. As the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly's Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism and Intolerance, I am committed to countering attempts to erase or revise the events of the Holocaust, such as Poland's efforts to punish those who speak the truth about the 3 million Jews killed there. I am deeply disturbed, for instance, by the news of a slander lawsuit against two Polish scholars for their writings on Jews forced into hiding during the Nazi occupation. I am also appalled that Hungary's Viktor Orban has erected a monument that tries to whitewash Hungary's wartime role in the murderof more than a half-million Hungarian Jews. On a day we remember the liberation of Auschwitz, I remember, too, that one out of every three Jews who died there were Hungarian. The Holocaust happened, and it can happen again. It can. We made a promise to our grandparents and to our grandchildren that it would never happen again. I believe that we are all each responsible for keeping that promise. So let us heed the lessons of the past in order to build a more peaceful, just, and compassionate future for all. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS165 | null | 2,211 |
formal | ghettos | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today the world comes together to remember the horrors of the Holocaust. We honor the 6 million Jews and 5 million others--Roma, Afro-Germans, gay men and women, people with disabilities and more--whom the Nazis brutally murdered. And we stand in awe and celebration of those brave souls who managed to survive. It is difficult to comprehend the terror that took place in Europe between 1939 and 1945, but we carry on an obligation to those who perished and those who survived to prevent further genocide and mass atrocities. It is critical that we understand what happened to them so we can prevent it from ever happening again. One of the most important things to understand about the Holocaust is that while a limited group of particularly evil monsters orchestrated it, they could not have succeeded without the active or tacit support of millions of average people. Men and women agreed to turn over their neighbors, patrol the ghettos, drive the cattle cars, guard the death camps, and line people up to shoot them down. Men and women decided to avert their gaze and do nothing to stop the atrocities. I don't believe that all those people were born villains. I think they were taught by their communities to adopt a level of anti-Semitism and prejudice that likely would have been recognizable to many of us today and that the Nazi propaganda masters exploited those feelings. That terrifies me because it means that the Holocaust was not an anomaly. It means that under the right conditions, a similar atrocity could happen again. The hatred that gave rise to the Holocaust is still very much alive. The Anti-Defamation League's 2014 Global Index of Anti-Semitism found that more than 1 billion people--nearly one in eight--around the world harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. Over 30 percent of those surveyed said that it was ``probably true'' that Jews had too much control over financial markets, that Jews think they are better than other people, that Jews are disloyal to their country, and that people hate Jews because of the way that Jews behave. Such sentiments often translate into violence, leading 40 percent of European Jews to report in 2018 that they lived in daily fear of being physically attacked. Sadly, these trends bear out closer to home too. Jews make up fewer than 3 percent of the American population, but the majority of reported religion-based hate crimes targeted Jewish people or institutions. In 2019, the ADL reported that anti-Semitism in America had hit a four-decade high. According to the 2020 survey by the American Jewish Committee, more than one-third of American Jews say they have been verbally or physically assaulted during the past 5 years simply because they are Jewish. I believe that the world looks to the United States for moral leadership. When we allow anti-Semitism or racism or other kinds of intolerance to flourish here, other countries take that as a license to do the same. Moreover, we need to recognize the nexus between and networking among those who traffic in hate and conspiracies in the United States and other like-minded individuals and groups around the globe. Combating the most dangerous forms of this bigotry will require understanding the ways in which such groups are reinforcing and learning from each other. Unfortunately, the last 4 years--beginning with White nationalists chanting ``Jews will not replace us'' in Charlottesville and ending with an insurrectionist wearing a ``Camp Auschwitz'' sweatshirt while storming the Capitol--are a dark stain on this country's record. By allowing such vicious hatred to take root and to grow, we fail ourselves, and we fail the rest of the world. Now we have the opportunity to redeem ourselves--to become leaders once more in the fight to eliminate anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred around the globe. It will not be easy, but it is something we have to do, and it starts with education. In the ADL's 2014 global survey, 35 percent of the respondents had never heard of the Holocaust, and 28 percent of those who did know of it believed that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust had been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, the AJC's 2020 Survey of the General Public found that nearly one-quarter of Americans know nothing or not much about the Holocaust, and nearly one-half are not even sure what the term ``anti-Semitism'' means. How can we hope to learn as a society from the horrors of the Holocaust if so many people do not know or do not believe that it happened? How can we root out anti-Semitism if almost half of us don't understand what it is? We must educate the next generation on the horrors of the Holocaust and the dangers of intolerance. I am proud to have led efforts to provide the full funding of a bill, which our Presiding Officer was very much involved with, the Never Again Education Act, and I thank our Presiding Officer for her leadership on this issue. That bill expanded the reach of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's world-renowned education program. This will allow educators across the country from K-12 through college to access age-appropriate curriculum on the Holocaust. It will also bolster the Holocaust Memorial Museum's continued collection and use of survivor testimony so that tomorrow's leaders will see and hear for themselves why we must never again allow hatred to thrive. At the same time, we must fight against Holocaust denial in any form in any part of the world. As the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly's Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism and Intolerance, I am committed to countering attempts to erase or revise the events of the Holocaust, such as Poland's efforts to punish those who speak the truth about the 3 million Jews killed there. I am deeply disturbed, for instance, by the news of a slander lawsuit against two Polish scholars for their writings on Jews forced into hiding during the Nazi occupation. I am also appalled that Hungary's Viktor Orban has erected a monument that tries to whitewash Hungary's wartime role in the murderof more than a half-million Hungarian Jews. On a day we remember the liberation of Auschwitz, I remember, too, that one out of every three Jews who died there were Hungarian. The Holocaust happened, and it can happen again. It can. We made a promise to our grandparents and to our grandchildren that it would never happen again. I believe that we are all each responsible for keeping that promise. So let us heed the lessons of the past in order to build a more peaceful, just, and compassionate future for all. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS165 | null | 2,212 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss some of the first actions that have been taken by the new administration. At his inauguration, President Biden spoke about the importance of uniting the country, bringing us together, the importance of unity. Well, I agree. We have been much too divided as a nation. We need to bring America together. In just a few hours after his inaugural address, President Biden issued one Executive order after another that I believe is only going to drive America further apart. He hasn't really reached out and hasn't really tried to work with us. At a time when millions of people across the country are struggling with unemployment and the effects of a global pandemic, President Biden has taken actions that will actually raise the cost of living for people all across the country. In particular, President Biden has taken aim at American energy. Now, in Wyoming, energy production does a lot more than just keep the lights on. It puts food on the table. It does it for thousands of families. It pays for our schools, education, and our roads. In Wyoming we produce coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear power. We also have incredible renewable resources. Wyoming, in many ways, has world class wind. We are experiencing that today in Casper, WY. Wyoming has some of the largest reserves of energy in terms of resources anywhere in the country. In Wyoming we produce 15 times more energy than we use in our State. It actually makes us the country's largest net energy supplier to the rest of the country. Energy production is the economic lifeblood of Wyoming. It is a major source of revenue for, as I said, our schools, our roads, our bridges, and essential services for all of our citizens. Wyoming is very proud of our energy workers. Remarkable men and women every day get up and go to work to put food on the table, put clothing on their kids' backs, and the whole country benefits from the energy that comes from Wyoming. Thanks to America's energy workers, in 2019, America became energy independent. It was the first time we had become independent in over 60 years. That makes it easier for families to make ends meet. It makes us stronger on the world stage. It decreases our reliance on energy from other sources, like foreign powers who want to do us harm. Thanks to our American energy workers, America is an energy superpower, and I believe we should be acting like one. That is why it is remarkable when I see President Biden painting a target on the back of American energy. That is what he has been doing with his Executive orders, including today. Despite all of the talk about unity, one of the first things that President Biden has done in office is to directly attack--attack--energy-producing States like Wyoming. It has actually turned out to be his No. 1 priority. The White House is calling today ``climate day.'' This morning, President Biden stopped all new oil, gas, and coal leases on Federal lands--today. Well, half of the State of Wyoming is federally owned. Even a greater percentage of that, Madam President, in your State is federally owned. Experts tell us that the long-term ban could cost us 33,000 jobs in Wyoming. We are a State of only a half-million people. Earlier today, at a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where I am the ranking member, the senior Republican, I asked the President's nominee for Secretary of Energy about how the President's ban would affect jobs, and she admitted that in terms of jobs--she said some ``jobs . . . might be sacrificed.'' Saying no to American energy production means less energy, less economic activity, and less money in the pockets of American workers. It is not going to do a thing to lower emissions. It won't bring down global temperatures, but it will bring down workers' wages. It won't cool down planet Earth, but it will cool down our Nation's economy. Energy producers will simply go elsewhere while families in our country will suffer. President Biden has also put a stop to the Keystone Pipeline. It has been in the headlines. The pipeline creates jobs. It reduces energy prices, and it strengthens our bonds with our neighbor to the north, with Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is no conservative. He is known to be extremely progressive. Even he has said he was disappointed in the decision by President Biden to cancel the pipeline. President Biden's very first phone call with a foreign leader since becoming President was with Prime Minister Trudeau. The Prime Minister raised the issue on the call. President Biden shut down the pipeline anyway. It has also been reported that TC Energy warned the President's administration that the Keystone Pipeline means thousands of construction jobs, many of those union jobs. They are gone. They are gone. President Biden shut it down anyway. President Biden has also begun the process of putting us back into the Paris climate accord. Now, under that agreement, the Biden administration is going to set unworkable targets for American businesses. So what does it mean? Well, it hurts America, but it means China and Russia can continue with business as usual. It is a bad deal for our country. It makes us less competitive. It sacrifices energy jobs to try to stop climate change, which it will not do. The Paris climate agreement is based on the fantasy that climate change is America's fault--blame America first. In reality, the United States is the leading driver of innovative climate solutions. President Biden's actions aren't just targeting American energy, they are also going after American small businesses. President Biden is calling on this body to vote to double the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Now, maybe the President's idea of national unity is national uniformity, but that doesn't work in Wyoming or for the people of Wyoming. Maybe he thinks that imposing top-down regulations on every American would bring us all together. It is not the kind of unity that the American people are looking for. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder but not in the unemployment line. In 2019, well before the pandemic hit, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that mandating a $15 minimum wage nationwide would lead to 1.3 million fewer Americans working--1.3 million Americans. At a time when 10 million Americans are unemployed due to our pandemic, 1.3 million Americans more can't afford to lose their jobs. The CBO also says it will lead to higher prices for consumers--paying more wages, passing on prices to consumers. Now this could hurt America's small businesses all across the country. I talked to a small business owner from Lovell, WY, Jimmy Minchow, who has a Sinclair station there. He called me on Sunday. He said $15 an hour--there is a station and a food court next to it in Lovell. He said we would have to shut down the food court. We can't afford $15 an hour for the young people who are working there. Putting money in their pockets and providing food services to the people of the community, $15 an hour will shut it down. So the jobs ticker is now on PresidentBiden's watch, and the President will be judged by his decisions. Now, the Senate, right before Christmas, passed another round of Paycheck Protection Programs we all supported. These are loans to help small businesses. I voted for it, and the Presiding Officer voted for it to help our small businesses. Doubling the minimum wage is going to hurt small businesses and going to force them to lay off employees like will likely happened in Lovell, WY, and all across the Cowboy State. It is going to hurt the very people these loans are supposed to be helping. A bill to provide $900 billion of relief was signed just in late December. President Biden now wants to double that amount of funding. Now, Democrats may try to ram the bill through the Senate using a process called budget reconciliation. Now, of course, this entire cost will be added to our national debt, and if it occurs, it will likely be done without a single Republican vote. This isn't unity. It is not bipartisanship. It is not healing our divisions. This is a time for President Biden to heed the words of his own inaugural address. We need to work together to lower the cost of living, to produce more energy, to create more jobs, and to create more opportunities for every American. That is how we bring our Nation together. That is what we ought to do now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS166 | null | 2,213 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss some of the first actions that have been taken by the new administration. At his inauguration, President Biden spoke about the importance of uniting the country, bringing us together, the importance of unity. Well, I agree. We have been much too divided as a nation. We need to bring America together. In just a few hours after his inaugural address, President Biden issued one Executive order after another that I believe is only going to drive America further apart. He hasn't really reached out and hasn't really tried to work with us. At a time when millions of people across the country are struggling with unemployment and the effects of a global pandemic, President Biden has taken actions that will actually raise the cost of living for people all across the country. In particular, President Biden has taken aim at American energy. Now, in Wyoming, energy production does a lot more than just keep the lights on. It puts food on the table. It does it for thousands of families. It pays for our schools, education, and our roads. In Wyoming we produce coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear power. We also have incredible renewable resources. Wyoming, in many ways, has world class wind. We are experiencing that today in Casper, WY. Wyoming has some of the largest reserves of energy in terms of resources anywhere in the country. In Wyoming we produce 15 times more energy than we use in our State. It actually makes us the country's largest net energy supplier to the rest of the country. Energy production is the economic lifeblood of Wyoming. It is a major source of revenue for, as I said, our schools, our roads, our bridges, and essential services for all of our citizens. Wyoming is very proud of our energy workers. Remarkable men and women every day get up and go to work to put food on the table, put clothing on their kids' backs, and the whole country benefits from the energy that comes from Wyoming. Thanks to America's energy workers, in 2019, America became energy independent. It was the first time we had become independent in over 60 years. That makes it easier for families to make ends meet. It makes us stronger on the world stage. It decreases our reliance on energy from other sources, like foreign powers who want to do us harm. Thanks to our American energy workers, America is an energy superpower, and I believe we should be acting like one. That is why it is remarkable when I see President Biden painting a target on the back of American energy. That is what he has been doing with his Executive orders, including today. Despite all of the talk about unity, one of the first things that President Biden has done in office is to directly attack--attack--energy-producing States like Wyoming. It has actually turned out to be his No. 1 priority. The White House is calling today ``climate day.'' This morning, President Biden stopped all new oil, gas, and coal leases on Federal lands--today. Well, half of the State of Wyoming is federally owned. Even a greater percentage of that, Madam President, in your State is federally owned. Experts tell us that the long-term ban could cost us 33,000 jobs in Wyoming. We are a State of only a half-million people. Earlier today, at a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where I am the ranking member, the senior Republican, I asked the President's nominee for Secretary of Energy about how the President's ban would affect jobs, and she admitted that in terms of jobs--she said some ``jobs . . . might be sacrificed.'' Saying no to American energy production means less energy, less economic activity, and less money in the pockets of American workers. It is not going to do a thing to lower emissions. It won't bring down global temperatures, but it will bring down workers' wages. It won't cool down planet Earth, but it will cool down our Nation's economy. Energy producers will simply go elsewhere while families in our country will suffer. President Biden has also put a stop to the Keystone Pipeline. It has been in the headlines. The pipeline creates jobs. It reduces energy prices, and it strengthens our bonds with our neighbor to the north, with Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is no conservative. He is known to be extremely progressive. Even he has said he was disappointed in the decision by President Biden to cancel the pipeline. President Biden's very first phone call with a foreign leader since becoming President was with Prime Minister Trudeau. The Prime Minister raised the issue on the call. President Biden shut down the pipeline anyway. It has also been reported that TC Energy warned the President's administration that the Keystone Pipeline means thousands of construction jobs, many of those union jobs. They are gone. They are gone. President Biden shut it down anyway. President Biden has also begun the process of putting us back into the Paris climate accord. Now, under that agreement, the Biden administration is going to set unworkable targets for American businesses. So what does it mean? Well, it hurts America, but it means China and Russia can continue with business as usual. It is a bad deal for our country. It makes us less competitive. It sacrifices energy jobs to try to stop climate change, which it will not do. The Paris climate agreement is based on the fantasy that climate change is America's fault--blame America first. In reality, the United States is the leading driver of innovative climate solutions. President Biden's actions aren't just targeting American energy, they are also going after American small businesses. President Biden is calling on this body to vote to double the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Now, maybe the President's idea of national unity is national uniformity, but that doesn't work in Wyoming or for the people of Wyoming. Maybe he thinks that imposing top-down regulations on every American would bring us all together. It is not the kind of unity that the American people are looking for. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder but not in the unemployment line. In 2019, well before the pandemic hit, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that mandating a $15 minimum wage nationwide would lead to 1.3 million fewer Americans working--1.3 million Americans. At a time when 10 million Americans are unemployed due to our pandemic, 1.3 million Americans more can't afford to lose their jobs. The CBO also says it will lead to higher prices for consumers--paying more wages, passing on prices to consumers. Now this could hurt America's small businesses all across the country. I talked to a small business owner from Lovell, WY, Jimmy Minchow, who has a Sinclair station there. He called me on Sunday. He said $15 an hour--there is a station and a food court next to it in Lovell. He said we would have to shut down the food court. We can't afford $15 an hour for the young people who are working there. Putting money in their pockets and providing food services to the people of the community, $15 an hour will shut it down. So the jobs ticker is now on PresidentBiden's watch, and the President will be judged by his decisions. Now, the Senate, right before Christmas, passed another round of Paycheck Protection Programs we all supported. These are loans to help small businesses. I voted for it, and the Presiding Officer voted for it to help our small businesses. Doubling the minimum wage is going to hurt small businesses and going to force them to lay off employees like will likely happened in Lovell, WY, and all across the Cowboy State. It is going to hurt the very people these loans are supposed to be helping. A bill to provide $900 billion of relief was signed just in late December. President Biden now wants to double that amount of funding. Now, Democrats may try to ram the bill through the Senate using a process called budget reconciliation. Now, of course, this entire cost will be added to our national debt, and if it occurs, it will likely be done without a single Republican vote. This isn't unity. It is not bipartisanship. It is not healing our divisions. This is a time for President Biden to heed the words of his own inaugural address. We need to work together to lower the cost of living, to produce more energy, to create more jobs, and to create more opportunities for every American. That is how we bring our Nation together. That is what we ought to do now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS166 | null | 2,214 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss some of the first actions that have been taken by the new administration. At his inauguration, President Biden spoke about the importance of uniting the country, bringing us together, the importance of unity. Well, I agree. We have been much too divided as a nation. We need to bring America together. In just a few hours after his inaugural address, President Biden issued one Executive order after another that I believe is only going to drive America further apart. He hasn't really reached out and hasn't really tried to work with us. At a time when millions of people across the country are struggling with unemployment and the effects of a global pandemic, President Biden has taken actions that will actually raise the cost of living for people all across the country. In particular, President Biden has taken aim at American energy. Now, in Wyoming, energy production does a lot more than just keep the lights on. It puts food on the table. It does it for thousands of families. It pays for our schools, education, and our roads. In Wyoming we produce coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear power. We also have incredible renewable resources. Wyoming, in many ways, has world class wind. We are experiencing that today in Casper, WY. Wyoming has some of the largest reserves of energy in terms of resources anywhere in the country. In Wyoming we produce 15 times more energy than we use in our State. It actually makes us the country's largest net energy supplier to the rest of the country. Energy production is the economic lifeblood of Wyoming. It is a major source of revenue for, as I said, our schools, our roads, our bridges, and essential services for all of our citizens. Wyoming is very proud of our energy workers. Remarkable men and women every day get up and go to work to put food on the table, put clothing on their kids' backs, and the whole country benefits from the energy that comes from Wyoming. Thanks to America's energy workers, in 2019, America became energy independent. It was the first time we had become independent in over 60 years. That makes it easier for families to make ends meet. It makes us stronger on the world stage. It decreases our reliance on energy from other sources, like foreign powers who want to do us harm. Thanks to our American energy workers, America is an energy superpower, and I believe we should be acting like one. That is why it is remarkable when I see President Biden painting a target on the back of American energy. That is what he has been doing with his Executive orders, including today. Despite all of the talk about unity, one of the first things that President Biden has done in office is to directly attack--attack--energy-producing States like Wyoming. It has actually turned out to be his No. 1 priority. The White House is calling today ``climate day.'' This morning, President Biden stopped all new oil, gas, and coal leases on Federal lands--today. Well, half of the State of Wyoming is federally owned. Even a greater percentage of that, Madam President, in your State is federally owned. Experts tell us that the long-term ban could cost us 33,000 jobs in Wyoming. We are a State of only a half-million people. Earlier today, at a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where I am the ranking member, the senior Republican, I asked the President's nominee for Secretary of Energy about how the President's ban would affect jobs, and she admitted that in terms of jobs--she said some ``jobs . . . might be sacrificed.'' Saying no to American energy production means less energy, less economic activity, and less money in the pockets of American workers. It is not going to do a thing to lower emissions. It won't bring down global temperatures, but it will bring down workers' wages. It won't cool down planet Earth, but it will cool down our Nation's economy. Energy producers will simply go elsewhere while families in our country will suffer. President Biden has also put a stop to the Keystone Pipeline. It has been in the headlines. The pipeline creates jobs. It reduces energy prices, and it strengthens our bonds with our neighbor to the north, with Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is no conservative. He is known to be extremely progressive. Even he has said he was disappointed in the decision by President Biden to cancel the pipeline. President Biden's very first phone call with a foreign leader since becoming President was with Prime Minister Trudeau. The Prime Minister raised the issue on the call. President Biden shut down the pipeline anyway. It has also been reported that TC Energy warned the President's administration that the Keystone Pipeline means thousands of construction jobs, many of those union jobs. They are gone. They are gone. President Biden shut it down anyway. President Biden has also begun the process of putting us back into the Paris climate accord. Now, under that agreement, the Biden administration is going to set unworkable targets for American businesses. So what does it mean? Well, it hurts America, but it means China and Russia can continue with business as usual. It is a bad deal for our country. It makes us less competitive. It sacrifices energy jobs to try to stop climate change, which it will not do. The Paris climate agreement is based on the fantasy that climate change is America's fault--blame America first. In reality, the United States is the leading driver of innovative climate solutions. President Biden's actions aren't just targeting American energy, they are also going after American small businesses. President Biden is calling on this body to vote to double the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Now, maybe the President's idea of national unity is national uniformity, but that doesn't work in Wyoming or for the people of Wyoming. Maybe he thinks that imposing top-down regulations on every American would bring us all together. It is not the kind of unity that the American people are looking for. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder but not in the unemployment line. In 2019, well before the pandemic hit, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that mandating a $15 minimum wage nationwide would lead to 1.3 million fewer Americans working--1.3 million Americans. At a time when 10 million Americans are unemployed due to our pandemic, 1.3 million Americans more can't afford to lose their jobs. The CBO also says it will lead to higher prices for consumers--paying more wages, passing on prices to consumers. Now this could hurt America's small businesses all across the country. I talked to a small business owner from Lovell, WY, Jimmy Minchow, who has a Sinclair station there. He called me on Sunday. He said $15 an hour--there is a station and a food court next to it in Lovell. He said we would have to shut down the food court. We can't afford $15 an hour for the young people who are working there. Putting money in their pockets and providing food services to the people of the community, $15 an hour will shut it down. So the jobs ticker is now on PresidentBiden's watch, and the President will be judged by his decisions. Now, the Senate, right before Christmas, passed another round of Paycheck Protection Programs we all supported. These are loans to help small businesses. I voted for it, and the Presiding Officer voted for it to help our small businesses. Doubling the minimum wage is going to hurt small businesses and going to force them to lay off employees like will likely happened in Lovell, WY, and all across the Cowboy State. It is going to hurt the very people these loans are supposed to be helping. A bill to provide $900 billion of relief was signed just in late December. President Biden now wants to double that amount of funding. Now, Democrats may try to ram the bill through the Senate using a process called budget reconciliation. Now, of course, this entire cost will be added to our national debt, and if it occurs, it will likely be done without a single Republican vote. This isn't unity. It is not bipartisanship. It is not healing our divisions. This is a time for President Biden to heed the words of his own inaugural address. We need to work together to lower the cost of living, to produce more energy, to create more jobs, and to create more opportunities for every American. That is how we bring our Nation together. That is what we ought to do now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS166 | null | 2,215 |
formal | shut it down | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss some of the first actions that have been taken by the new administration. At his inauguration, President Biden spoke about the importance of uniting the country, bringing us together, the importance of unity. Well, I agree. We have been much too divided as a nation. We need to bring America together. In just a few hours after his inaugural address, President Biden issued one Executive order after another that I believe is only going to drive America further apart. He hasn't really reached out and hasn't really tried to work with us. At a time when millions of people across the country are struggling with unemployment and the effects of a global pandemic, President Biden has taken actions that will actually raise the cost of living for people all across the country. In particular, President Biden has taken aim at American energy. Now, in Wyoming, energy production does a lot more than just keep the lights on. It puts food on the table. It does it for thousands of families. It pays for our schools, education, and our roads. In Wyoming we produce coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear power. We also have incredible renewable resources. Wyoming, in many ways, has world class wind. We are experiencing that today in Casper, WY. Wyoming has some of the largest reserves of energy in terms of resources anywhere in the country. In Wyoming we produce 15 times more energy than we use in our State. It actually makes us the country's largest net energy supplier to the rest of the country. Energy production is the economic lifeblood of Wyoming. It is a major source of revenue for, as I said, our schools, our roads, our bridges, and essential services for all of our citizens. Wyoming is very proud of our energy workers. Remarkable men and women every day get up and go to work to put food on the table, put clothing on their kids' backs, and the whole country benefits from the energy that comes from Wyoming. Thanks to America's energy workers, in 2019, America became energy independent. It was the first time we had become independent in over 60 years. That makes it easier for families to make ends meet. It makes us stronger on the world stage. It decreases our reliance on energy from other sources, like foreign powers who want to do us harm. Thanks to our American energy workers, America is an energy superpower, and I believe we should be acting like one. That is why it is remarkable when I see President Biden painting a target on the back of American energy. That is what he has been doing with his Executive orders, including today. Despite all of the talk about unity, one of the first things that President Biden has done in office is to directly attack--attack--energy-producing States like Wyoming. It has actually turned out to be his No. 1 priority. The White House is calling today ``climate day.'' This morning, President Biden stopped all new oil, gas, and coal leases on Federal lands--today. Well, half of the State of Wyoming is federally owned. Even a greater percentage of that, Madam President, in your State is federally owned. Experts tell us that the long-term ban could cost us 33,000 jobs in Wyoming. We are a State of only a half-million people. Earlier today, at a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where I am the ranking member, the senior Republican, I asked the President's nominee for Secretary of Energy about how the President's ban would affect jobs, and she admitted that in terms of jobs--she said some ``jobs . . . might be sacrificed.'' Saying no to American energy production means less energy, less economic activity, and less money in the pockets of American workers. It is not going to do a thing to lower emissions. It won't bring down global temperatures, but it will bring down workers' wages. It won't cool down planet Earth, but it will cool down our Nation's economy. Energy producers will simply go elsewhere while families in our country will suffer. President Biden has also put a stop to the Keystone Pipeline. It has been in the headlines. The pipeline creates jobs. It reduces energy prices, and it strengthens our bonds with our neighbor to the north, with Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is no conservative. He is known to be extremely progressive. Even he has said he was disappointed in the decision by President Biden to cancel the pipeline. President Biden's very first phone call with a foreign leader since becoming President was with Prime Minister Trudeau. The Prime Minister raised the issue on the call. President Biden shut down the pipeline anyway. It has also been reported that TC Energy warned the President's administration that the Keystone Pipeline means thousands of construction jobs, many of those union jobs. They are gone. They are gone. President Biden shut it down anyway. President Biden has also begun the process of putting us back into the Paris climate accord. Now, under that agreement, the Biden administration is going to set unworkable targets for American businesses. So what does it mean? Well, it hurts America, but it means China and Russia can continue with business as usual. It is a bad deal for our country. It makes us less competitive. It sacrifices energy jobs to try to stop climate change, which it will not do. The Paris climate agreement is based on the fantasy that climate change is America's fault--blame America first. In reality, the United States is the leading driver of innovative climate solutions. President Biden's actions aren't just targeting American energy, they are also going after American small businesses. President Biden is calling on this body to vote to double the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Now, maybe the President's idea of national unity is national uniformity, but that doesn't work in Wyoming or for the people of Wyoming. Maybe he thinks that imposing top-down regulations on every American would bring us all together. It is not the kind of unity that the American people are looking for. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder but not in the unemployment line. In 2019, well before the pandemic hit, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that mandating a $15 minimum wage nationwide would lead to 1.3 million fewer Americans working--1.3 million Americans. At a time when 10 million Americans are unemployed due to our pandemic, 1.3 million Americans more can't afford to lose their jobs. The CBO also says it will lead to higher prices for consumers--paying more wages, passing on prices to consumers. Now this could hurt America's small businesses all across the country. I talked to a small business owner from Lovell, WY, Jimmy Minchow, who has a Sinclair station there. He called me on Sunday. He said $15 an hour--there is a station and a food court next to it in Lovell. He said we would have to shut down the food court. We can't afford $15 an hour for the young people who are working there. Putting money in their pockets and providing food services to the people of the community, $15 an hour will shut it down. So the jobs ticker is now on PresidentBiden's watch, and the President will be judged by his decisions. Now, the Senate, right before Christmas, passed another round of Paycheck Protection Programs we all supported. These are loans to help small businesses. I voted for it, and the Presiding Officer voted for it to help our small businesses. Doubling the minimum wage is going to hurt small businesses and going to force them to lay off employees like will likely happened in Lovell, WY, and all across the Cowboy State. It is going to hurt the very people these loans are supposed to be helping. A bill to provide $900 billion of relief was signed just in late December. President Biden now wants to double that amount of funding. Now, Democrats may try to ram the bill through the Senate using a process called budget reconciliation. Now, of course, this entire cost will be added to our national debt, and if it occurs, it will likely be done without a single Republican vote. This isn't unity. It is not bipartisanship. It is not healing our divisions. This is a time for President Biden to heed the words of his own inaugural address. We need to work together to lower the cost of living, to produce more energy, to create more jobs, and to create more opportunities for every American. That is how we bring our Nation together. That is what we ought to do now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS166 | null | 2,216 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, if you buy a new GM car, a Nissan, Honda, Kia or Toyota, even a Hyundai, you will notice they have started installing a new feature in their cars. It is a reminder, when you turn off the engine, to check your backseat. Quite frankly, I rented a car not long ago, and it started dinging, and I kept trying to figure out what I had done and kept looking around until I saw the little monitor on the dashboard. It just said, ``Check the backseat,'' which I thought was great because the makers of those cars all believe every child is precious and they shouldn't be harmed. We have all heard stories like this, but I distinctly remember last summer seeing in the news a story about an infant who died because they were left in a hot car. That is why these carmakers are making this feature now. I remember, as I saw the story on the news, just the reports and how angry people were in the community. And they were angry at the store, and they were upset on the news. They couldn't believe that a mom had left a child in the backseat of a car and they had slowly died in the heat, because no one wants to see a child harmed. Everyone believes that every child is precious. I remember, when I saw the story on the news last summer, turning to my wife and saying: I can't figure out our culture sometimes because that same mom and that same baby could have gone into an abortion clinic just a few months before and that child's life could have been ended, and it wouldn't have made the news. In fact, no one would have flinched. In fact, the very same people who were furious at that mom for leaving her child in the hot car to die would have argued for her right to destroy that exact same child--in fact, would have called it her reproductive right or even the new euphemism out there, ``reproductive care.'' Same child, same mom--nothing was different but a few months in time. ``Reproductive care'' seems like such a nice little euphemism, but what it really means is paying someone in a clinic to reach into the womb with a surgical instrument, to pull the arms and legs off of a child in the womb so that they will bleed to death in the womb and then suction out the little boy or girl's body parts one at a time. That is what ``reproductive care'' means, and I don't understand why that is normal but leaving a child in the backseat of a hot car is a tragedy. Maybe it is because, as a nation, some people are afraid to answer the most obvious question: Is that a baby? That is the most obvious question. That face, that nose, those two eyes, that mouth, that chin, those fingers--is that a baby? That is really the only question: Is that a child? Maybe there is a second question that needs to be answered: Are all children valuable, or are only some children valuable? We seem to have a great deal of debate today in our society--and we should--about facts. People say we can't seem to agree on the same set of facts and truth. You can't have your facts and my facts; we just only have facts. The media, Big Tech, activists have all decried our loss of ability as a nation to just accept clear facts in front of our face--the obvious truth. So let me ask the question again: Is that a baby? Yes or no? Because if we are all supposed to say, ``Let's at least agree to the most basic of facts,'' how about that one? Is that a human child with a future and a purpose and a name? Are all children valuable or are only some? Gold is valuable. It doesn't matter its size. I have gold in my wedding ring. Many people have gold in their wedding rings. If we found a small piece of gold on the floor, it would be valuable. It wouldn't matter its shape. It wouldn't matter its size, small or large. We don't discriminate. Gold is valuable because everyone universally recognizes its worth. Every single Senator in this room recognizes the worth and value of gold. It is around $1,800 an ounce right now to be able to get gold. We all seem, no matter how small or large, to agree gold is valuable, but we can't seem to agree that all children are valuable. Literally, gold is more precious to some people in this room than children are. Children aren't valuable only sometimes or only certain children. Children are valuable. It can't be just that if a mom or dad wants a child, they are valuable and, if they don't want a child, they are not valuable; they are disposable. The mom or dad gets to choose who are precious and who is medical waste. Is that a child? That is really the only question that has to be answered, because everything else flows from that. There are political conversations in this room about the value of children, and every time it comes up, it gets noisy. People will say: Well, you don't fund enough money for education or childcare or healthcare in communities. So you don't love children. I would say I have voted for the exact same bill you did last year, for billions of dollars for assistance in childcare, billions of dollars for early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, higher education. We did additional assistance for SNAP benefits last year and assistance of benefits for moms in need, increased healthcare for all communities, for federally qualified health centers to make sure we get healthcare to every single community. I voted on those exact same things multiple other people did in this room. I care about children outside the womb. But those questions really aren't the question. They are distractions to the question. And I get it, because if I ask, ``Is that a child?'' people will respond: Well, do you spend enough for childcare or healthcare? And I still say: Wait. Stop and answer my first question. Is that a child? Maybe I should ask a more basic question: Does everyone in this room believe in the principle that we should do unto others as we would want done unto us? What would you have wanted done to you when you were in the womb? I don't address this issue lightly. This is a difficult issue for some people. I don't think an abortion is a flippant thing, that anyone walks into an abortion--I don't mean anyone who had an abortion is somehow gleeful about it. Quite frankly, I can't imagine that anyone who had an abortion would ever forget the sights and sounds and the smells of an abortion, knowing that a helpless child is dying at that moment. I grieve for the moms and dads who will never ever forget that they went into a clinic and paid someone to getrid of their child in the name of reproductive care. I can't imagine what their emotion is. But we as a society have to answer this question still for every child who has yet to come. Forty-eight years ago this week, the Supreme Court made a decision that has now resulted in the deaths of 62 million children in America--62 million. That is hard to fathom. Unlike so many other Supreme Court decisions, America has not forgotten about this one. Our culture has not just moved on and accepted it. Every year since 1974--the first year after the Roe V. Wade decision--individuals from across the country have gathered in Washington, DC, in defense of the unborn. Friends, families, church leaders, community folks--they have all marched in the rain, in the sleet, the snow. It is cold every year this week in January, but they come. This year will be different. Due to COVID-19 and the ongoing security concerns in Washington, DC, marchers are staying home, and they are engaging virtually. Maybe this is one more moment where even more people can get involved online, because I expect the rally this year will draw an even larger number of people--students, families, people, quite frankly, from all over the world--to ask a simple question: Will we recognize the most obvious thing in front of our face--that is a baby. President Biden this week celebrated the passage of Roe v. Wade by declaring that he wants to pass a Federal law requiring abortion to be provided in every single State in America. It is not just trust a Court decision from 1973; he wants us to proactively require in statute that every State demand abortion in their State and that Federal taxpayers, with hard-earned tax dollars, should actually be required to pay for those abortions all over America. It wasn't long ago that Senator Biden was saying things like, taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for abortion; they shouldn't be required to pay for something that they find so morally objectionable. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Biden was talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. But now, as President, within the first week, he is moving as fast as he can to promote abortion and demand taxpayers pay for it. In fact, painfully so, President Biden's nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services has actually no healthcare experience at all. It was a little surprising to a lot of us when we saw it because we are used to seeing the leader of Health and Human Services be a physician or scientist, which would make sense in the time of an enormous global pandemic to have a physician leading Health and Human Services. But he actually nominated someone whose biggest qualification is that he is one of the most radical advocates for abortion in the country. He did it as a House Member. He did it as an attorney general in California. And clearly the promise was made that he will do it if you put him in Health and Human Services. Let me just give an example of what I am talking about for Mr. Becerra. I can't process some of these things. Mr. Becerra, when he was the attorney general for California, actually went to Mississippi to be able to lead a suit against Mississippi--another State, obviously--because that State was talking about limiting abortion to only the earliest days. Their belief was, after a child feels pain, we should at least not tear a child limb from limb in the womb when their nervous system is developed. Mr. Becerra led a coalition of State attorneys general to fight Mississippi and say: You can't protect children that way. He actually argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor, trying to require that group of nuns to provide birth-control services--literally attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor to kind of push this whole agenda. When he was a Representative in the House of Representatives, he voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. So if a child, in a botched abortion, is actually delivered instead of destroyed, he wanted to say, no, even after they are fully delivered, that child can still be destroyed, even though they are fully delivered, which would make sense because he also, as a Representative, fought against the partial-birth abortion ban. It was a rare procedure, but it was a procedure where they would deliver the child--all but the head--and then penetrate the head with scissors and kill the child. He fought against that. He fought against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which really is odd to me. All it did was criminalize--if someone attacked a pregnant woman and killed her child, they could also be liable for that death as well. He also didn't want to recognize the child as a child even if the mother saw the child as a child. He also fought against crossing State lines for minors, saying they shouldn't have to get their parents' permission if they crossed State lines to go get an abortion somewhere else. As the attorney general in California, he fought to require churches to pay for abortion care in their healthcare plans when it directly violated their religious belief. Unbelievably so, he also fought to be able to require pro-life medical claims, where you could go and say: I don't want an abortion, but I do want a sonogram. I want to be able to get some more information about this child. If you went into one of those pro-life centers and got a sonogram, he fought to require there to be a poster on the wall that would say: If you would rather have an abortion, here is the place that you would go. This is beyond just protecting abortion; that has moved to promoting abortion, encouraging the death of children. It got even so bizarre that in California, when there was a video taken of a Planned Parenthood group of folks who wer trafficking the body parts of children and it was caught on video, instead of confronting the folks who were trafficking the child body parts, he went after the folks who took the video, the whistleblowers, and exposed them. This is not an attack on Mr. Becerra. It is just a shock to me that all of those things seem normal. I don't understand that culturally. I don't understand how the person who is being appointed to lead Health and Human Services can say that children are subhuman: I don't have to recognize that as human, although I am leading Health and Human Services. That is apparently optional tissue, not a human child. I believe that children are human and that we should honor every child's life. It should be baseline for us to be able to say that if a child is actually delivered in a botched abortion and has been fully delivered outside the womb, we should help that child get medical care. I don't understand why that is so hard. I don't understand why it is so hard to say that some people are actually appalled by the taking of a child's life. Don't force them, with their tax dollars, to pay for it. I don't understand why that is controversial. I don't understand why it is controversial that when a child can feel pain in the womb, we shouldn't dismember a child in the womb. I don't understand why that is controversial. I don't understand why it is controversial to some that if a healthcare provider who has sworn to protect life--that that person shouldn't be compelled to take life in an abortion procedure by their employer. I don't understand why that is controversial, but for some reason, it is. Among our most basic rights in America are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One of the most basic things that come out of our founding documents says these things are referred to as ``self-evident.'' Facts are facts, especially when those facts have a face. How can you look at that picture and say that is not a human child? How can we not acknowledge the simple facts? I do understand for some people this is very difficult because they fought for years for abortion, and they don't want that to change because if it changed, they would have to admit there have been the deaths of millions of children on their watch. That is not a simple thing to admit. But please do not tell me you are following the science, because that child has 10 fingers and 10 toes and a beating heart and a functioning nervous system. That child has DNA that is different from the mom's or the dad's. That is not random tissue; that is a separate person, and sciencewould confirm that. So please don't follow tell me you follow the science wherever it goes because some facts are obvious, and the science is clear. This all gets resolved when we answer one simple question: Is that a child or not--because everything else goes from that. For those of you joining the March for Life online this week, good for you. Keep going. Don't give up. Defend the facts that are self-evident. Speak out for those who can't speak for themselves because millions of future Americans are counting on it, and they are watching for someone to admit the facts--the facts that have a face. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS167 | null | 2,217 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | At the request of Mr. Toomey, the names of the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) were added as cosponsors of S. 42, a bill to ensure that State and local law enforcement may cooperate with Federal officials to protect our communities from violent criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally present in the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-27-pt1-PgS177-2 | null | 2,218 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, over the past week, the Senate has been confirming President Biden's Cabinet nominees with significant cooperation between both parties. Today, however, the Republican minority has forced the Senate to jump through a series of procedural hoops that will further delay the confirmation of one of our country's chief national security officials, the Secretary of Homeland Security. It has now been 8 days since President Biden was sworn into office, and as a result of an objection from one Member--just one Member from the Republican minority--it will be another 4 days until we can complete the confirmation of Mr. Mayorkas to be our next Secretary of Homeland Security. What could have been the tidy work of a few hours on President Biden's first day will drag on for a week and a half. Make no mistake about it--he will be confirmed. This dilatory action will not succeed, but it will prevent the Senate from doing other important business. It has become a point of pride for the Republican leadership to say that they are treating President Biden's nominees more fairly than Mr. Trump's, but I remind my colleagues that former President Trump had his first DHS Secretary, Secretary Kelly, confirmed on his Inauguration Day. There is a reason that there has been bipartisan cooperation in the past to confirm the Homeland Security Secretary. Whatever our differences on policy, both parties have agreed that the prolonged delay of these nominations is no good--no good--for our national security. That is particularly the case right now. Our government recently suffered an unprecedented cyber attack. In the wake of January 6, the threat of violence and domestic terrorism remains a great concern. But because of the tactics of some Republican Members--particularly the junior Senator from Missouri--Mr. Mayorkas's nomination is being needlessly stalled. My friends on the other side don't have to agree with Mr. Mayorkas on the final points of every policy. I am sure they don't share the exact views of every appointment to a Democratic President's Cabinet. But that is not a sufficient reason to oppose a nomination, especially one as important as Homeland Security. You don't have to take my word for it; listen to Michael Chertoff, President Bush's former DHS Secretary. He said: If members of Congress want to contest elements of [Biden's] proposal[s], they are free to do so. . . . But hostage taking is not an appropriate way to do this, particularly if a result of that is to put the lives of [the American people] in jeopardy. Chertoff went on to say that actions to thwart Mayorkas's nomination were ``irresponsible and unconscionable.'' ``Irresponsible and unconscionable''--that is President Bush's former Secretary of Homeland Security, not a Democrat. Well, the Senate is not going to tolerate this irresponsible and unconscionable delay. Despite the tactics from the Republican side, the Senate will begin work on this crucial nomination today, and he will be confirmed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS181-6 | null | 2,219 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on a totally different matter, the country has waited to see whether the new administration would follow a pro-job, pro-worker, pro-working family approach or give in to the far left and put ideological concerns before kitchen table ones. Unfortunately, we didn't have to wait long. As recently as October, now-President Biden said: ``You can't [legislate] by executive action unless you're a dictator.'' Well, in 1 week, he signed more than 30 unilateral actions, and working Americans are getting short shrift. The President abruptly canceled the Keystone Pipeline, a massive setback for energy security in North America. The Canadian leader called it ``a gut punch.'' I imagine the 11,000 American workers, including 8,000 union workers who were counting on that work, feel the same way. We have headed back into an international pact that would have us self-inflict serious pain on working families, has failed to curb China's emissions, and without which our own emissions have been dropping anyway. And yesterday, the administration slammed the brakes on further domestic energy development on the huge swaths of land owned by the Federal Government: no new oil, gas, or coal leases on Federal land. Our responsible use of these lands accounts for more than a fifth--one-fifth--of our domestic production, about 2.8 million barrels per day. That is almost the equivalent of Kuwait's daily oil production from our Federal lands alone; plus, more than 10 percent of domestic natural gas. And 2019 marked the first time in nearly 70 years when U.S. energy exports outpaced imports. For the first time since the 1950s, our Nation ran an energy surplus, not a deficit. That has been great news, but some leftwing elites are not happy. The sources of this affordable domestic energy are not sufficiently trendy. As John Kerry explained yesterday on behalf of the administration, he wants the large numbers of American workers in those sectors to find ``better choices''--better choices than their good jobs that feed their families and strengthen our independence. Remember, with the pipeline cancellation, the President effectively closed the door on thousands of American jobs with the stroke of a pen. According to one news report, one welder from Pipeliners Local 798, who had been working in Nebraska, says he has already had to lay off his wholeteam before losing his job himself. He said he sat down in his truck and simply cried. This latest new prohibition will replicate that heartbreak many times over. According to one study, the decision on Federal lands will leave us down nearly 1 million American jobs by next year alone--1 million lost jobs by next year alone. It is a heck of a way to kick off a Presidency: mass layoffs of our own citizens, and working Americans in other sectors will pay as well. One analysis found this decision could increase household energy costs by almost $20 billion over the next decade, and President Biden, John Kerry, and the whole gang appear to be just getting warmed up. Mr. Kerry admitted yesterday that even if the United States somehow brought our carbon emissions to zero, it wouldn't make much difference in the global picture. That is because our competitors, including China, have already gone roaring past us. But there is one kind of cooling these policies will achieve. They will ice the job market in communities all across America. In the State of New Mexico, 65 percent of oil and gas production is tied to Federal lands. By one estimate, 16,000 jobs will be on the chopping block in that State alone--that State alone--next year if President Biden's ban holds up. In Colorado, it would cost another 3,000 jobs and more than 40 percent of the State's natural gas production. As a Kentuckian, I am all too familiar with the way these Democratic policies can hurt communities. Kentucky paid dearly for the first round of these liberal policies under President Obama. We have no desire to be subjected to a sequel, especially when John Kerry says we should take the rate at which coal is already declining and quintuple it. In her confirmation hearing yesterday, the President's nominee to be Energy Secretary referenced ``jobs that might be sacrificed.'' Yeah, that is absolutely right. Well, she gets some points for honesty. That is what happened the last time these folks called the shots. Jobs were sacrificed, including, ultimately, some of the jobs of the Democratic politicians who backed these policies. There is a concept in sports that a coach or a manager should never make a decision that will make the opposing team happy. If they are torn about a risky play call or if they are overthinking a pitching change, they should ask themselves which decision their opponents would rather see and do the opposite. Our new administration is failing that test on domestic energy. China, Russia, and our other competitors must be thrilled, absolutely thrilled that our new government is essentially declaring war on some of our own economic foundations to satisfy a craving for symbolic gestures--willfully throwing our own people out of work, reducing our domestic energy security, raising costs and prices for working families--all for no meaningful impact on global temperatures, just to buy applause at those international conferences, where the participants all assemble by private jet. It shouldn't be this way, not with a President who campaigned on protecting the lunch-pail union jobs that his left flank wants to eliminate. The President was not elected to enact policies that prompt a certain young Congresswoman from New York City to boast online that her radical ideas are shaping his energy policies. The last 4 years proved that growing our prosperity, reducing emissions, and expanding domestic energy are actually not in tension. We can achieve all three. There is nothing green about a tsunami of pink slips for American workers or carting Canadian crude around in trucks and trains instead of a pipeline. This piecemeal Green New Deal is the wrong prescription, wrong for the environment, wrong for national security, and most of all for the working Americans who will soon be formerly working Americans if this keeps up. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS182-4 | null | 2,220 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on a totally different matter, the country has waited to see whether the new administration would follow a pro-job, pro-worker, pro-working family approach or give in to the far left and put ideological concerns before kitchen table ones. Unfortunately, we didn't have to wait long. As recently as October, now-President Biden said: ``You can't [legislate] by executive action unless you're a dictator.'' Well, in 1 week, he signed more than 30 unilateral actions, and working Americans are getting short shrift. The President abruptly canceled the Keystone Pipeline, a massive setback for energy security in North America. The Canadian leader called it ``a gut punch.'' I imagine the 11,000 American workers, including 8,000 union workers who were counting on that work, feel the same way. We have headed back into an international pact that would have us self-inflict serious pain on working families, has failed to curb China's emissions, and without which our own emissions have been dropping anyway. And yesterday, the administration slammed the brakes on further domestic energy development on the huge swaths of land owned by the Federal Government: no new oil, gas, or coal leases on Federal land. Our responsible use of these lands accounts for more than a fifth--one-fifth--of our domestic production, about 2.8 million barrels per day. That is almost the equivalent of Kuwait's daily oil production from our Federal lands alone; plus, more than 10 percent of domestic natural gas. And 2019 marked the first time in nearly 70 years when U.S. energy exports outpaced imports. For the first time since the 1950s, our Nation ran an energy surplus, not a deficit. That has been great news, but some leftwing elites are not happy. The sources of this affordable domestic energy are not sufficiently trendy. As John Kerry explained yesterday on behalf of the administration, he wants the large numbers of American workers in those sectors to find ``better choices''--better choices than their good jobs that feed their families and strengthen our independence. Remember, with the pipeline cancellation, the President effectively closed the door on thousands of American jobs with the stroke of a pen. According to one news report, one welder from Pipeliners Local 798, who had been working in Nebraska, says he has already had to lay off his wholeteam before losing his job himself. He said he sat down in his truck and simply cried. This latest new prohibition will replicate that heartbreak many times over. According to one study, the decision on Federal lands will leave us down nearly 1 million American jobs by next year alone--1 million lost jobs by next year alone. It is a heck of a way to kick off a Presidency: mass layoffs of our own citizens, and working Americans in other sectors will pay as well. One analysis found this decision could increase household energy costs by almost $20 billion over the next decade, and President Biden, John Kerry, and the whole gang appear to be just getting warmed up. Mr. Kerry admitted yesterday that even if the United States somehow brought our carbon emissions to zero, it wouldn't make much difference in the global picture. That is because our competitors, including China, have already gone roaring past us. But there is one kind of cooling these policies will achieve. They will ice the job market in communities all across America. In the State of New Mexico, 65 percent of oil and gas production is tied to Federal lands. By one estimate, 16,000 jobs will be on the chopping block in that State alone--that State alone--next year if President Biden's ban holds up. In Colorado, it would cost another 3,000 jobs and more than 40 percent of the State's natural gas production. As a Kentuckian, I am all too familiar with the way these Democratic policies can hurt communities. Kentucky paid dearly for the first round of these liberal policies under President Obama. We have no desire to be subjected to a sequel, especially when John Kerry says we should take the rate at which coal is already declining and quintuple it. In her confirmation hearing yesterday, the President's nominee to be Energy Secretary referenced ``jobs that might be sacrificed.'' Yeah, that is absolutely right. Well, she gets some points for honesty. That is what happened the last time these folks called the shots. Jobs were sacrificed, including, ultimately, some of the jobs of the Democratic politicians who backed these policies. There is a concept in sports that a coach or a manager should never make a decision that will make the opposing team happy. If they are torn about a risky play call or if they are overthinking a pitching change, they should ask themselves which decision their opponents would rather see and do the opposite. Our new administration is failing that test on domestic energy. China, Russia, and our other competitors must be thrilled, absolutely thrilled that our new government is essentially declaring war on some of our own economic foundations to satisfy a craving for symbolic gestures--willfully throwing our own people out of work, reducing our domestic energy security, raising costs and prices for working families--all for no meaningful impact on global temperatures, just to buy applause at those international conferences, where the participants all assemble by private jet. It shouldn't be this way, not with a President who campaigned on protecting the lunch-pail union jobs that his left flank wants to eliminate. The President was not elected to enact policies that prompt a certain young Congresswoman from New York City to boast online that her radical ideas are shaping his energy policies. The last 4 years proved that growing our prosperity, reducing emissions, and expanding domestic energy are actually not in tension. We can achieve all three. There is nothing green about a tsunami of pink slips for American workers or carting Canadian crude around in trucks and trains instead of a pipeline. This piecemeal Green New Deal is the wrong prescription, wrong for the environment, wrong for national security, and most of all for the working Americans who will soon be formerly working Americans if this keeps up. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS182-4 | null | 2,221 |
formal | Janet Yellen | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now on COVID, Madam President, quickly, this Chamber must also consider additional relief for the American economy and the American people suffering from the prolonged effects of COVID-19. Congress must pursue a bold and robust course of action to defeat the disease, recover our economy, and get our country back to normal. Again, our country requires bold and robust action. A trio of economic news items this week has underlined the glaring needs in the country. First, the Federal Reserve issued a sobering warning yesterday that the pace of economic recovery is weakening, and as a result, they decided to leave interest rates low. Second, the unemployment report this morning reminded us that jobless claims are still extremely high--at or near 1 million per week. That is a lot larger than usual. Third and maybe most astoundingly, most striking, the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning revealed that last year, the economy shrank by 3.5 percent--the worst year for economic growth since World War II and the first time our economy has contracted since the great recession. Given these economic numbers, the need to act big and bold is urgent. Given the fact that the GDP sunk by 3.5 percent last year, we need recovery and rescue quickly. Everywhere you look, alarm bells are ringing--mortgage deferrals are increasing, businesses are still closing, schools are closed in many States, restaurants and bars and travel are in crisis. Our new Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen, who was days ago confirmed with the support of 84 Members of this body and a large majority of our Republican colleagues, just told us that ``with interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big.'' That is what Yellen said. ``[T]he smartest thing we can do is act big.'' Given these numbers, given the weakening state of the economy, only big, bold action is called for. To cut things dramatically at a time when the economy needs a boost would be irresponsible and hurt millions of people. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-century crisis. It requires a once-in-a-century effort to overcome it. The dangers of undershooting our response are far greater than overshooting. We should learn the lesson from 2008 and 2009, when Congress was too timid and constrained in its response to the global financial crisis and it took years--years--for the economy to get out of recession. We must not repeat that mistake today. So the Senate, as early as next week, will begin the process of considering a very strong COVID-relief bill. Our preference is to make this important work bipartisan, to include input, ideas, and revisions from our Republican colleagues or bipartisan efforts to do the same. But if our Republican colleagues decide to oppose this urgent and necessary legislation, we will have to move forward without it. We have a responsibility to help the American people fast, particularly given these new economic numbers. The Senate will begin that work next week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS182 | null | 2,222 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now on COVID, Madam President, quickly, this Chamber must also consider additional relief for the American economy and the American people suffering from the prolonged effects of COVID-19. Congress must pursue a bold and robust course of action to defeat the disease, recover our economy, and get our country back to normal. Again, our country requires bold and robust action. A trio of economic news items this week has underlined the glaring needs in the country. First, the Federal Reserve issued a sobering warning yesterday that the pace of economic recovery is weakening, and as a result, they decided to leave interest rates low. Second, the unemployment report this morning reminded us that jobless claims are still extremely high--at or near 1 million per week. That is a lot larger than usual. Third and maybe most astoundingly, most striking, the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning revealed that last year, the economy shrank by 3.5 percent--the worst year for economic growth since World War II and the first time our economy has contracted since the great recession. Given these economic numbers, the need to act big and bold is urgent. Given the fact that the GDP sunk by 3.5 percent last year, we need recovery and rescue quickly. Everywhere you look, alarm bells are ringing--mortgage deferrals are increasing, businesses are still closing, schools are closed in many States, restaurants and bars and travel are in crisis. Our new Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen, who was days ago confirmed with the support of 84 Members of this body and a large majority of our Republican colleagues, just told us that ``with interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big.'' That is what Yellen said. ``[T]he smartest thing we can do is act big.'' Given these numbers, given the weakening state of the economy, only big, bold action is called for. To cut things dramatically at a time when the economy needs a boost would be irresponsible and hurt millions of people. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-century crisis. It requires a once-in-a-century effort to overcome it. The dangers of undershooting our response are far greater than overshooting. We should learn the lesson from 2008 and 2009, when Congress was too timid and constrained in its response to the global financial crisis and it took years--years--for the economy to get out of recession. We must not repeat that mistake today. So the Senate, as early as next week, will begin the process of considering a very strong COVID-relief bill. Our preference is to make this important work bipartisan, to include input, ideas, and revisions from our Republican colleagues or bipartisan efforts to do the same. But if our Republican colleagues decide to oppose this urgent and necessary legislation, we will have to move forward without it. We have a responsibility to help the American people fast, particularly given these new economic numbers. The Senate will begin that work next week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS182 | null | 2,223 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now on COVID, Madam President, quickly, this Chamber must also consider additional relief for the American economy and the American people suffering from the prolonged effects of COVID-19. Congress must pursue a bold and robust course of action to defeat the disease, recover our economy, and get our country back to normal. Again, our country requires bold and robust action. A trio of economic news items this week has underlined the glaring needs in the country. First, the Federal Reserve issued a sobering warning yesterday that the pace of economic recovery is weakening, and as a result, they decided to leave interest rates low. Second, the unemployment report this morning reminded us that jobless claims are still extremely high--at or near 1 million per week. That is a lot larger than usual. Third and maybe most astoundingly, most striking, the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning revealed that last year, the economy shrank by 3.5 percent--the worst year for economic growth since World War II and the first time our economy has contracted since the great recession. Given these economic numbers, the need to act big and bold is urgent. Given the fact that the GDP sunk by 3.5 percent last year, we need recovery and rescue quickly. Everywhere you look, alarm bells are ringing--mortgage deferrals are increasing, businesses are still closing, schools are closed in many States, restaurants and bars and travel are in crisis. Our new Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen, who was days ago confirmed with the support of 84 Members of this body and a large majority of our Republican colleagues, just told us that ``with interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big.'' That is what Yellen said. ``[T]he smartest thing we can do is act big.'' Given these numbers, given the weakening state of the economy, only big, bold action is called for. To cut things dramatically at a time when the economy needs a boost would be irresponsible and hurt millions of people. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-century crisis. It requires a once-in-a-century effort to overcome it. The dangers of undershooting our response are far greater than overshooting. We should learn the lesson from 2008 and 2009, when Congress was too timid and constrained in its response to the global financial crisis and it took years--years--for the economy to get out of recession. We must not repeat that mistake today. So the Senate, as early as next week, will begin the process of considering a very strong COVID-relief bill. Our preference is to make this important work bipartisan, to include input, ideas, and revisions from our Republican colleagues or bipartisan efforts to do the same. But if our Republican colleagues decide to oppose this urgent and necessary legislation, we will have to move forward without it. We have a responsibility to help the American people fast, particularly given these new economic numbers. The Senate will begin that work next week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS182 | null | 2,224 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this morning as I came to work in the Capitol, I saw our National Guard troops outside. I wanted to thank them, again, on behalf of the Senate and the people of America for coming to our assistance during the inauguration ceremonies. Some are still on the job, making sure that we maintain order in the streets of Washington, DC, and that we conduct the business of the American people here in the Capitol Building. I want to thank them again, particularly the 270 National Guard forces from my State of Illinois--I had a chance to meet many of them--sacrificing time away from their families to serve their Nation. It was a job well done. For those who continue to do the work, we stand by you, and we thank you again. Heather Cox Richardson does a column each day that is really a source of information that is important. She reminded us in her column this morning about what happened here in this Capitol Building just 3 weeks ago on January 6. Let me read what she said: In testimony yesterday, the acting chief of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington told the House Appropriations Committee that at least 65 officers filed reports of injury after the January 6 attack. The chair of the Capitol Police officers' union . . . put the number closer to 140. ``I have officers who were not issued helmets prior to the attack [and] who have sustained brain injuries. One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs. One officer is going to lose his eye, and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake,'' he said. One officer died of injuries sustained on January 6. Two officers have since taken their own lives. I want to put that in the Record because in a week, beginning with the impeachment trial, we are going to reflect, again, on what happened January 6. Some of my colleagues, and many people on their side, are saying we shouldn't spend time talking about what happened on January 6. In the words of the former Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, we ought to ``get over it''--``get over it.'' It is hard to get over it when you consider the facts that I just read into the Record. For the families of those officers who lost their lives and those who were seriously injured, they won't get over it for a long, long time. I don't know what the impeachment trial will find in terms of the role of the former President of the United States, but I believe it is an important milestone in America's history for us to stop and recount what actually happened in this building on January 6, where a mob, incited by the President, stormed this Capitol, broke through, smashing windows and doors, and literally took control of this Capitol Building for several hours. Here in the Senate Chamber, we were evacuated. Thank goodness, we returned that same evening to complete our business and complete our work. There is ample evidence of what happened that day by video, photographs, and testimony. I hope it is part of the record in this impeachment hearing so that this generation and future generations will have no doubt what happened that day. Already, we have those who are in denial, who are arguing that this was really some far-left group that was taking over the demonstration--a ludicrous argument on its face. And we have many who are in complete denial that it happened or that it had anything to do with rightwing politics. They are wrong. We saw it. We recorded it. We are going to put it, in part, as part of the record so that America knows what happened on that day. Yesterday, we got a warning that this may not be the end of it, that there may be more activity. Let me say at the outset that I condemn extremism and violence on any part of the political spectrum. But yesterday, thewarning was to the right, who apparently are going to continue in their efforts to disrupt life in America and endanger the lives of fellow Americans and law enforcement officers. We need to stand up as a nation and say, ``Enough.'' Whatever your political strife, there is no room for extremism and violence in the exercise of a constitutional responsibility or right. I wanted to make that as part of the Record as an opening statement | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS183-3 | null | 2,225 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I close, I want to take a moment to recognize those South Dakotans participating in the virtual March for Life tomorrow. We have gotten used to saying ``it is going to be a little different this year'' during the pandemic, and that applies to the March for Life as well. Usually, tens of thousands of Americans travel to Washington, DC, every January to participate in the march--Americans from every State in the union, of every political persuasion, of every religion or none at all--all united by their commitment to defending the dignity and value and humanity of the unborn child. This year the march will be virtual, but pro-life Americans will still be united in spirit. To all of those South Dakotans virtually marching tomorrow and to all those Americans everywhere united in the pro-life cause, thank you. Thank you for standing--standing up every year on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Most of all, thank you for everything that you do throughout the year, because the biggest work of the pro-life movement happens outside of the March for Life. It happens in churches around America, where congregations collect money to support prenatal care for pregnant women in need or gather diapers and baby supplies to give to struggling mothers. It happens on college campuses, where pro-life students educate their peers about the reality of abortion. It happens in crisis pregnancy centers, where moms and dads facing unplanned pregnancies are met with resources and love and support. It happens at maternity homes, where single moms get the support they need to have their babies and to build job skills or get an education. Every day, you are building a culture of life in this country with your work and your political action and your prayers. I know that is not always easy, but the race is not to the swift nor the strong. It is to those who endure, and I am confident that, sooner or later, right and justice will prevail because we have the truth on our side--the truth that every human being, no matter how old or how young, no matter the race or the color of their skin, no matter their religion or political persuasion, is created in the image and likeness of God and has infinite dignity and worth. So keep standing up for the babies, and tomorrow I will be joining my prayers with yours that one day soon the right to life of unborn human beings will be protected in law. May God bless you all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-2 | null | 2,226 |
formal | single mom | null | racist | Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I close, I want to take a moment to recognize those South Dakotans participating in the virtual March for Life tomorrow. We have gotten used to saying ``it is going to be a little different this year'' during the pandemic, and that applies to the March for Life as well. Usually, tens of thousands of Americans travel to Washington, DC, every January to participate in the march--Americans from every State in the union, of every political persuasion, of every religion or none at all--all united by their commitment to defending the dignity and value and humanity of the unborn child. This year the march will be virtual, but pro-life Americans will still be united in spirit. To all of those South Dakotans virtually marching tomorrow and to all those Americans everywhere united in the pro-life cause, thank you. Thank you for standing--standing up every year on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Most of all, thank you for everything that you do throughout the year, because the biggest work of the pro-life movement happens outside of the March for Life. It happens in churches around America, where congregations collect money to support prenatal care for pregnant women in need or gather diapers and baby supplies to give to struggling mothers. It happens on college campuses, where pro-life students educate their peers about the reality of abortion. It happens in crisis pregnancy centers, where moms and dads facing unplanned pregnancies are met with resources and love and support. It happens at maternity homes, where single moms get the support they need to have their babies and to build job skills or get an education. Every day, you are building a culture of life in this country with your work and your political action and your prayers. I know that is not always easy, but the race is not to the swift nor the strong. It is to those who endure, and I am confident that, sooner or later, right and justice will prevail because we have the truth on our side--the truth that every human being, no matter how old or how young, no matter the race or the color of their skin, no matter their religion or political persuasion, is created in the image and likeness of God and has infinite dignity and worth. So keep standing up for the babies, and tomorrow I will be joining my prayers with yours that one day soon the right to life of unborn human beings will be protected in law. May God bless you all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-2 | null | 2,227 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on an incredibly powerful and truly audacious idea. The idea was that every single human being was created equal, with rights that come from your Creator, from God--not from the government, not from the laws, not even from the Constitution or your leaders. You are born with those rights. Inherent in that is our powerful national commitment that I think remains to this day, the belief that everyone should have freedom and that everyone--because freedom comes with those rights--and that everyone be treated fairly. For 244 years, our story has been that of a nation on a continuous and a steady march to live up to those ideals. Tomorrow, thousands will come to Washington once again for a different march but one that I believe is tied directly to this Nation's ongoing quest to fulfill the promise of its founding. Almost half a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that within our Constitution, there was the implicit right to end the life of an unborn child. Since then, every single day in this country, unborn human beings have had their life ended before they even drew their first breath. They are, in essence, denied the freedom to live, not because they did anything wrong; they are denied this most basic of rights unfairly because of circumstances they have nothing to do with and do not control. That this occurs here is shameful enough, and I believe that is how history will regard it; that we use taxpayer money to promote it and export it abroad is outrageous. Before we even passed a bill to deal with the pandemic or to bring back good jobs to the United States or any of the other major issues confronting our country, in one of his first acts as President, President Biden decided to prioritize tearing up the so-called Mexico City policy--a policy that rightfully bans our taxpayer dollars from being sent to organizations that use them to perform or promote abortions overseas. Abortion is a very difficult and uncomfortable topic. No one can pretend that if some 15-year-old girl is pregnant and afraid--afraid of her parents, afraid of what others might think, afraid for her future--that she faces an easy choice. It is not. It doesn't feel fair, it doesn't feel like freedom to have laws that tell people what they can or cannot do with their body, but in this case, the challenge we have is that it is a case that puts the fundamental rights of two people into direct conflict--the right, as most definitely exists, of a mother to choose what to do with her body versus the right of an unborn child to live. Itforces us to decide which one of these two rights wins out in those circumstances. I personally, for one, and those who march tomorrow have chosen life--not because it is an easy choice but because, to me, it is a clear one because the right to live is the one right upon which all the other rights we claim depend. Without life, there is no speech to protect, and there is no religion to practice. Without life, frankly, nothing else matters. I would point out that being pro-life is not just about the right to be born; it also means the right to live and to thrive. Once a child is born, that child depends on their parents or whoever their guardians are who are raising them, and they have a moral and legal duty to care for them--not just to feed them, not just to clothe them, not just to house them, but also to promote a safe and stable home and the chance at a good education and a better future. That is why I deeply believe that pro-life must also mean being pro-parent. Being a parent is the most influential role anyone will ever have. It is the most important job any of us will ever have. That is why I worked to and we were successful in expanding the child tax credit 2 years ago. That is why I stand ready now to work with President Biden to expand it even further. I am concerned about some of the details of the policies he has outlined. For example, his proposal appears to unfairly benefit parents who send their children to commercial childcare over stay-at-home parents or grandparents or other caregivers. But this is an area where we have a common goal and one where I believe we can find a way to work together. It is also why I support creating the opportunity for every parent in America to have access to paid family leave, because no one should be thrown into welfare or debt or bankruptcy because they got pregnant, because they had a child. It is also, by the way, why I support school choice. In America, rich parents can afford to send their kids to any school they want, and they do. Upper middle class parents can move to neighborhoods with good public schools. But it is unfair that the only parents in America who are forced to send their children to the school the government tells them--even if that school is failing their children--are the parents who don't make enough money to have another option. For 21st-century America to move closer to fulfilling our founding principle of equality, of freedom, of fairness, every child deserves the right not just to be born but also the right to live and to thrive, the right not just to exist but the right to pursue and fulfill their potential. I believe that what is at stake is nothing less than our identity as a nation. If we become a place where your right to be born and your ability to succeed is determined by who your parents are or by the circumstances of your conception, then we may remain, indeed, a rich and a powerful and an important country, but we will no longer be a special one. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. RUBIO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-3 | null | 2,228 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on an incredibly powerful and truly audacious idea. The idea was that every single human being was created equal, with rights that come from your Creator, from God--not from the government, not from the laws, not even from the Constitution or your leaders. You are born with those rights. Inherent in that is our powerful national commitment that I think remains to this day, the belief that everyone should have freedom and that everyone--because freedom comes with those rights--and that everyone be treated fairly. For 244 years, our story has been that of a nation on a continuous and a steady march to live up to those ideals. Tomorrow, thousands will come to Washington once again for a different march but one that I believe is tied directly to this Nation's ongoing quest to fulfill the promise of its founding. Almost half a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that within our Constitution, there was the implicit right to end the life of an unborn child. Since then, every single day in this country, unborn human beings have had their life ended before they even drew their first breath. They are, in essence, denied the freedom to live, not because they did anything wrong; they are denied this most basic of rights unfairly because of circumstances they have nothing to do with and do not control. That this occurs here is shameful enough, and I believe that is how history will regard it; that we use taxpayer money to promote it and export it abroad is outrageous. Before we even passed a bill to deal with the pandemic or to bring back good jobs to the United States or any of the other major issues confronting our country, in one of his first acts as President, President Biden decided to prioritize tearing up the so-called Mexico City policy--a policy that rightfully bans our taxpayer dollars from being sent to organizations that use them to perform or promote abortions overseas. Abortion is a very difficult and uncomfortable topic. No one can pretend that if some 15-year-old girl is pregnant and afraid--afraid of her parents, afraid of what others might think, afraid for her future--that she faces an easy choice. It is not. It doesn't feel fair, it doesn't feel like freedom to have laws that tell people what they can or cannot do with their body, but in this case, the challenge we have is that it is a case that puts the fundamental rights of two people into direct conflict--the right, as most definitely exists, of a mother to choose what to do with her body versus the right of an unborn child to live. Itforces us to decide which one of these two rights wins out in those circumstances. I personally, for one, and those who march tomorrow have chosen life--not because it is an easy choice but because, to me, it is a clear one because the right to live is the one right upon which all the other rights we claim depend. Without life, there is no speech to protect, and there is no religion to practice. Without life, frankly, nothing else matters. I would point out that being pro-life is not just about the right to be born; it also means the right to live and to thrive. Once a child is born, that child depends on their parents or whoever their guardians are who are raising them, and they have a moral and legal duty to care for them--not just to feed them, not just to clothe them, not just to house them, but also to promote a safe and stable home and the chance at a good education and a better future. That is why I deeply believe that pro-life must also mean being pro-parent. Being a parent is the most influential role anyone will ever have. It is the most important job any of us will ever have. That is why I worked to and we were successful in expanding the child tax credit 2 years ago. That is why I stand ready now to work with President Biden to expand it even further. I am concerned about some of the details of the policies he has outlined. For example, his proposal appears to unfairly benefit parents who send their children to commercial childcare over stay-at-home parents or grandparents or other caregivers. But this is an area where we have a common goal and one where I believe we can find a way to work together. It is also why I support creating the opportunity for every parent in America to have access to paid family leave, because no one should be thrown into welfare or debt or bankruptcy because they got pregnant, because they had a child. It is also, by the way, why I support school choice. In America, rich parents can afford to send their kids to any school they want, and they do. Upper middle class parents can move to neighborhoods with good public schools. But it is unfair that the only parents in America who are forced to send their children to the school the government tells them--even if that school is failing their children--are the parents who don't make enough money to have another option. For 21st-century America to move closer to fulfilling our founding principle of equality, of freedom, of fairness, every child deserves the right not just to be born but also the right to live and to thrive, the right not just to exist but the right to pursue and fulfill their potential. I believe that what is at stake is nothing less than our identity as a nation. If we become a place where your right to be born and your ability to succeed is determined by who your parents are or by the circumstances of your conception, then we may remain, indeed, a rich and a powerful and an important country, but we will no longer be a special one. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. RUBIO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-3 | null | 2,229 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on an incredibly powerful and truly audacious idea. The idea was that every single human being was created equal, with rights that come from your Creator, from God--not from the government, not from the laws, not even from the Constitution or your leaders. You are born with those rights. Inherent in that is our powerful national commitment that I think remains to this day, the belief that everyone should have freedom and that everyone--because freedom comes with those rights--and that everyone be treated fairly. For 244 years, our story has been that of a nation on a continuous and a steady march to live up to those ideals. Tomorrow, thousands will come to Washington once again for a different march but one that I believe is tied directly to this Nation's ongoing quest to fulfill the promise of its founding. Almost half a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that within our Constitution, there was the implicit right to end the life of an unborn child. Since then, every single day in this country, unborn human beings have had their life ended before they even drew their first breath. They are, in essence, denied the freedom to live, not because they did anything wrong; they are denied this most basic of rights unfairly because of circumstances they have nothing to do with and do not control. That this occurs here is shameful enough, and I believe that is how history will regard it; that we use taxpayer money to promote it and export it abroad is outrageous. Before we even passed a bill to deal with the pandemic or to bring back good jobs to the United States or any of the other major issues confronting our country, in one of his first acts as President, President Biden decided to prioritize tearing up the so-called Mexico City policy--a policy that rightfully bans our taxpayer dollars from being sent to organizations that use them to perform or promote abortions overseas. Abortion is a very difficult and uncomfortable topic. No one can pretend that if some 15-year-old girl is pregnant and afraid--afraid of her parents, afraid of what others might think, afraid for her future--that she faces an easy choice. It is not. It doesn't feel fair, it doesn't feel like freedom to have laws that tell people what they can or cannot do with their body, but in this case, the challenge we have is that it is a case that puts the fundamental rights of two people into direct conflict--the right, as most definitely exists, of a mother to choose what to do with her body versus the right of an unborn child to live. Itforces us to decide which one of these two rights wins out in those circumstances. I personally, for one, and those who march tomorrow have chosen life--not because it is an easy choice but because, to me, it is a clear one because the right to live is the one right upon which all the other rights we claim depend. Without life, there is no speech to protect, and there is no religion to practice. Without life, frankly, nothing else matters. I would point out that being pro-life is not just about the right to be born; it also means the right to live and to thrive. Once a child is born, that child depends on their parents or whoever their guardians are who are raising them, and they have a moral and legal duty to care for them--not just to feed them, not just to clothe them, not just to house them, but also to promote a safe and stable home and the chance at a good education and a better future. That is why I deeply believe that pro-life must also mean being pro-parent. Being a parent is the most influential role anyone will ever have. It is the most important job any of us will ever have. That is why I worked to and we were successful in expanding the child tax credit 2 years ago. That is why I stand ready now to work with President Biden to expand it even further. I am concerned about some of the details of the policies he has outlined. For example, his proposal appears to unfairly benefit parents who send their children to commercial childcare over stay-at-home parents or grandparents or other caregivers. But this is an area where we have a common goal and one where I believe we can find a way to work together. It is also why I support creating the opportunity for every parent in America to have access to paid family leave, because no one should be thrown into welfare or debt or bankruptcy because they got pregnant, because they had a child. It is also, by the way, why I support school choice. In America, rich parents can afford to send their kids to any school they want, and they do. Upper middle class parents can move to neighborhoods with good public schools. But it is unfair that the only parents in America who are forced to send their children to the school the government tells them--even if that school is failing their children--are the parents who don't make enough money to have another option. For 21st-century America to move closer to fulfilling our founding principle of equality, of freedom, of fairness, every child deserves the right not just to be born but also the right to live and to thrive, the right not just to exist but the right to pursue and fulfill their potential. I believe that what is at stake is nothing less than our identity as a nation. If we become a place where your right to be born and your ability to succeed is determined by who your parents are or by the circumstances of your conception, then we may remain, indeed, a rich and a powerful and an important country, but we will no longer be a special one. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. RUBIO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-3 | null | 2,230 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on an incredibly powerful and truly audacious idea. The idea was that every single human being was created equal, with rights that come from your Creator, from God--not from the government, not from the laws, not even from the Constitution or your leaders. You are born with those rights. Inherent in that is our powerful national commitment that I think remains to this day, the belief that everyone should have freedom and that everyone--because freedom comes with those rights--and that everyone be treated fairly. For 244 years, our story has been that of a nation on a continuous and a steady march to live up to those ideals. Tomorrow, thousands will come to Washington once again for a different march but one that I believe is tied directly to this Nation's ongoing quest to fulfill the promise of its founding. Almost half a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that within our Constitution, there was the implicit right to end the life of an unborn child. Since then, every single day in this country, unborn human beings have had their life ended before they even drew their first breath. They are, in essence, denied the freedom to live, not because they did anything wrong; they are denied this most basic of rights unfairly because of circumstances they have nothing to do with and do not control. That this occurs here is shameful enough, and I believe that is how history will regard it; that we use taxpayer money to promote it and export it abroad is outrageous. Before we even passed a bill to deal with the pandemic or to bring back good jobs to the United States or any of the other major issues confronting our country, in one of his first acts as President, President Biden decided to prioritize tearing up the so-called Mexico City policy--a policy that rightfully bans our taxpayer dollars from being sent to organizations that use them to perform or promote abortions overseas. Abortion is a very difficult and uncomfortable topic. No one can pretend that if some 15-year-old girl is pregnant and afraid--afraid of her parents, afraid of what others might think, afraid for her future--that she faces an easy choice. It is not. It doesn't feel fair, it doesn't feel like freedom to have laws that tell people what they can or cannot do with their body, but in this case, the challenge we have is that it is a case that puts the fundamental rights of two people into direct conflict--the right, as most definitely exists, of a mother to choose what to do with her body versus the right of an unborn child to live. Itforces us to decide which one of these two rights wins out in those circumstances. I personally, for one, and those who march tomorrow have chosen life--not because it is an easy choice but because, to me, it is a clear one because the right to live is the one right upon which all the other rights we claim depend. Without life, there is no speech to protect, and there is no religion to practice. Without life, frankly, nothing else matters. I would point out that being pro-life is not just about the right to be born; it also means the right to live and to thrive. Once a child is born, that child depends on their parents or whoever their guardians are who are raising them, and they have a moral and legal duty to care for them--not just to feed them, not just to clothe them, not just to house them, but also to promote a safe and stable home and the chance at a good education and a better future. That is why I deeply believe that pro-life must also mean being pro-parent. Being a parent is the most influential role anyone will ever have. It is the most important job any of us will ever have. That is why I worked to and we were successful in expanding the child tax credit 2 years ago. That is why I stand ready now to work with President Biden to expand it even further. I am concerned about some of the details of the policies he has outlined. For example, his proposal appears to unfairly benefit parents who send their children to commercial childcare over stay-at-home parents or grandparents or other caregivers. But this is an area where we have a common goal and one where I believe we can find a way to work together. It is also why I support creating the opportunity for every parent in America to have access to paid family leave, because no one should be thrown into welfare or debt or bankruptcy because they got pregnant, because they had a child. It is also, by the way, why I support school choice. In America, rich parents can afford to send their kids to any school they want, and they do. Upper middle class parents can move to neighborhoods with good public schools. But it is unfair that the only parents in America who are forced to send their children to the school the government tells them--even if that school is failing their children--are the parents who don't make enough money to have another option. For 21st-century America to move closer to fulfilling our founding principle of equality, of freedom, of fairness, every child deserves the right not just to be born but also the right to live and to thrive, the right not just to exist but the right to pursue and fulfill their potential. I believe that what is at stake is nothing less than our identity as a nation. If we become a place where your right to be born and your ability to succeed is determined by who your parents are or by the circumstances of your conception, then we may remain, indeed, a rich and a powerful and an important country, but we will no longer be a special one. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. RUBIO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-3 | null | 2,231 |
formal | school choice | null | racist | Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on an incredibly powerful and truly audacious idea. The idea was that every single human being was created equal, with rights that come from your Creator, from God--not from the government, not from the laws, not even from the Constitution or your leaders. You are born with those rights. Inherent in that is our powerful national commitment that I think remains to this day, the belief that everyone should have freedom and that everyone--because freedom comes with those rights--and that everyone be treated fairly. For 244 years, our story has been that of a nation on a continuous and a steady march to live up to those ideals. Tomorrow, thousands will come to Washington once again for a different march but one that I believe is tied directly to this Nation's ongoing quest to fulfill the promise of its founding. Almost half a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that within our Constitution, there was the implicit right to end the life of an unborn child. Since then, every single day in this country, unborn human beings have had their life ended before they even drew their first breath. They are, in essence, denied the freedom to live, not because they did anything wrong; they are denied this most basic of rights unfairly because of circumstances they have nothing to do with and do not control. That this occurs here is shameful enough, and I believe that is how history will regard it; that we use taxpayer money to promote it and export it abroad is outrageous. Before we even passed a bill to deal with the pandemic or to bring back good jobs to the United States or any of the other major issues confronting our country, in one of his first acts as President, President Biden decided to prioritize tearing up the so-called Mexico City policy--a policy that rightfully bans our taxpayer dollars from being sent to organizations that use them to perform or promote abortions overseas. Abortion is a very difficult and uncomfortable topic. No one can pretend that if some 15-year-old girl is pregnant and afraid--afraid of her parents, afraid of what others might think, afraid for her future--that she faces an easy choice. It is not. It doesn't feel fair, it doesn't feel like freedom to have laws that tell people what they can or cannot do with their body, but in this case, the challenge we have is that it is a case that puts the fundamental rights of two people into direct conflict--the right, as most definitely exists, of a mother to choose what to do with her body versus the right of an unborn child to live. Itforces us to decide which one of these two rights wins out in those circumstances. I personally, for one, and those who march tomorrow have chosen life--not because it is an easy choice but because, to me, it is a clear one because the right to live is the one right upon which all the other rights we claim depend. Without life, there is no speech to protect, and there is no religion to practice. Without life, frankly, nothing else matters. I would point out that being pro-life is not just about the right to be born; it also means the right to live and to thrive. Once a child is born, that child depends on their parents or whoever their guardians are who are raising them, and they have a moral and legal duty to care for them--not just to feed them, not just to clothe them, not just to house them, but also to promote a safe and stable home and the chance at a good education and a better future. That is why I deeply believe that pro-life must also mean being pro-parent. Being a parent is the most influential role anyone will ever have. It is the most important job any of us will ever have. That is why I worked to and we were successful in expanding the child tax credit 2 years ago. That is why I stand ready now to work with President Biden to expand it even further. I am concerned about some of the details of the policies he has outlined. For example, his proposal appears to unfairly benefit parents who send their children to commercial childcare over stay-at-home parents or grandparents or other caregivers. But this is an area where we have a common goal and one where I believe we can find a way to work together. It is also why I support creating the opportunity for every parent in America to have access to paid family leave, because no one should be thrown into welfare or debt or bankruptcy because they got pregnant, because they had a child. It is also, by the way, why I support school choice. In America, rich parents can afford to send their kids to any school they want, and they do. Upper middle class parents can move to neighborhoods with good public schools. But it is unfair that the only parents in America who are forced to send their children to the school the government tells them--even if that school is failing their children--are the parents who don't make enough money to have another option. For 21st-century America to move closer to fulfilling our founding principle of equality, of freedom, of fairness, every child deserves the right not just to be born but also the right to live and to thrive, the right not just to exist but the right to pursue and fulfill their potential. I believe that what is at stake is nothing less than our identity as a nation. If we become a place where your right to be born and your ability to succeed is determined by who your parents are or by the circumstances of your conception, then we may remain, indeed, a rich and a powerful and an important country, but we will no longer be a special one. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. RUBIO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-3 | null | 2,232 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, our Nation was founded on an incredibly powerful and truly audacious idea. The idea was that every single human being was created equal, with rights that come from your Creator, from God--not from the government, not from the laws, not even from the Constitution or your leaders. You are born with those rights. Inherent in that is our powerful national commitment that I think remains to this day, the belief that everyone should have freedom and that everyone--because freedom comes with those rights--and that everyone be treated fairly. For 244 years, our story has been that of a nation on a continuous and a steady march to live up to those ideals. Tomorrow, thousands will come to Washington once again for a different march but one that I believe is tied directly to this Nation's ongoing quest to fulfill the promise of its founding. Almost half a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that within our Constitution, there was the implicit right to end the life of an unborn child. Since then, every single day in this country, unborn human beings have had their life ended before they even drew their first breath. They are, in essence, denied the freedom to live, not because they did anything wrong; they are denied this most basic of rights unfairly because of circumstances they have nothing to do with and do not control. That this occurs here is shameful enough, and I believe that is how history will regard it; that we use taxpayer money to promote it and export it abroad is outrageous. Before we even passed a bill to deal with the pandemic or to bring back good jobs to the United States or any of the other major issues confronting our country, in one of his first acts as President, President Biden decided to prioritize tearing up the so-called Mexico City policy--a policy that rightfully bans our taxpayer dollars from being sent to organizations that use them to perform or promote abortions overseas. Abortion is a very difficult and uncomfortable topic. No one can pretend that if some 15-year-old girl is pregnant and afraid--afraid of her parents, afraid of what others might think, afraid for her future--that she faces an easy choice. It is not. It doesn't feel fair, it doesn't feel like freedom to have laws that tell people what they can or cannot do with their body, but in this case, the challenge we have is that it is a case that puts the fundamental rights of two people into direct conflict--the right, as most definitely exists, of a mother to choose what to do with her body versus the right of an unborn child to live. Itforces us to decide which one of these two rights wins out in those circumstances. I personally, for one, and those who march tomorrow have chosen life--not because it is an easy choice but because, to me, it is a clear one because the right to live is the one right upon which all the other rights we claim depend. Without life, there is no speech to protect, and there is no religion to practice. Without life, frankly, nothing else matters. I would point out that being pro-life is not just about the right to be born; it also means the right to live and to thrive. Once a child is born, that child depends on their parents or whoever their guardians are who are raising them, and they have a moral and legal duty to care for them--not just to feed them, not just to clothe them, not just to house them, but also to promote a safe and stable home and the chance at a good education and a better future. That is why I deeply believe that pro-life must also mean being pro-parent. Being a parent is the most influential role anyone will ever have. It is the most important job any of us will ever have. That is why I worked to and we were successful in expanding the child tax credit 2 years ago. That is why I stand ready now to work with President Biden to expand it even further. I am concerned about some of the details of the policies he has outlined. For example, his proposal appears to unfairly benefit parents who send their children to commercial childcare over stay-at-home parents or grandparents or other caregivers. But this is an area where we have a common goal and one where I believe we can find a way to work together. It is also why I support creating the opportunity for every parent in America to have access to paid family leave, because no one should be thrown into welfare or debt or bankruptcy because they got pregnant, because they had a child. It is also, by the way, why I support school choice. In America, rich parents can afford to send their kids to any school they want, and they do. Upper middle class parents can move to neighborhoods with good public schools. But it is unfair that the only parents in America who are forced to send their children to the school the government tells them--even if that school is failing their children--are the parents who don't make enough money to have another option. For 21st-century America to move closer to fulfilling our founding principle of equality, of freedom, of fairness, every child deserves the right not just to be born but also the right to live and to thrive, the right not just to exist but the right to pursue and fulfill their potential. I believe that what is at stake is nothing less than our identity as a nation. If we become a place where your right to be born and your ability to succeed is determined by who your parents are or by the circumstances of your conception, then we may remain, indeed, a rich and a powerful and an important country, but we will no longer be a special one. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. RUBIO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186-3 | null | 2,233 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE. Madam President, on the subject of bipartisanship, I am disturbed by the rumors that Democrats plan to use reconciliation to force another COVID bill through Congress on partisan lines before even giving good-faith effort to bipartisan negotiations. Republicans are more than willing to work with Democrats on additional targeted COVID relief legislation. Now, I won't pretend that we don't have reservations about some of the measures that Democrats have proposed. For instance, I don't think an emergency COVID relief bill is the place to push through a change that would more than double the Federal minimum wage and directly increase expenses on businesses that have been decimated by the pandemic. That is a policy with a lot of economic consequences, and it shouldn't be pushed through Congress in a hasty fashion. Republicans are also concerned about the enormous amount of money that Democrats want to spend. We have already spent more than $4 trillion to address this pandemic, and we need to be very careful--very careful--about additional spending and appropriate only what is necessary to respond to this pandemic and with an eye to the burden that we are putting on the economy and on young Americans as we increase our national debt. The higher our national debt, the greater the drag on economic growth and the more likely it is that young Americans will face increasingly burdensome tax bills in the future to meet our debt obligations. But let me be very clear. While Republicans certainly have concerns about some of the Democrats' proposals, we are committed to defeating this pandemic and to getting Americans vaccinated, and we are ready to work with Democrats on any necessary COVID relief legislation that would achieve that objective. It would be very disappointing if Democrats decided to shove a partisan bill through Congress without even attempting to work with Republicans. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS186 | null | 2,234 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, it is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr. President. I haven't seen that for a while. Congratulations to you. I feel like yesterday I was in the movie ``Back to the Future.'' I rise today to voice my deep concern with the lengthy Executive order that President Biden issued yesterday pertaining to climate, and my larger concerns about where the Biden administration is moving with regard to their energy and environment agenda. President Biden, very passionately, as we sat out on the steps, called for unity in his January 20 inauguration speech. But as his first actions, President Biden managed to kill thousands of jobs and paralyze America's industry--the energy industry. His order yesterday put a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on Federal lands. This is an economic, energy, and national security disaster, in my view. This order moves America from energy independence back to relying on foreign sources for fuel--and a lot of times these are the countries that have much more lax environmental policies than we have right here in the United States. The order also usurps our States' rights--the States' rights which are to manage their own energy industries. As you know, I come from an energy-producing State. We have a proud heritage of that. So what about the States that rely on tax revenues from the energy industry to fund education? We see what has happened with education now under the pandemic. More headwinds into how do we deliver a great education product is a question we are going to be answering over the next several months and years. So any ideas? I wonder if President Biden actually talked to any of the Governors of these States to see what the impact of what he was doing might have. But what we saw yesterday in the press conference was President Biden and Gina McCarthy and John Kerry's ultimate goal, which is to ban fossil fuels. They were pretty upfront about that. So my skepticism, when I hear that the administration is going to give industry time to transition and give workers a clean energy job--that is where I found myself thinking: I am in ``Back to the Future.'' I have heard this before because I vividly remember the empty promises of the past. This is a deeply personal issue for me because I have lived through this. I have seen this playbook before. So we are back to the future. The Obama administration said the very same things to West Virginians. In fact, I remember the same people saying the same things, and I remember the utterly unachievable regulatory requirements that Gina McCarthy created in her position as head of the EPA that decimated my State. I remember the thousands of jobs lost--and still lost--and the hopelessness and then the succeeding opioid epidemic that followed. I remember begging the Obama EPA to come to West Virginia to see how the regulations, with no time to transition, were destroying more of our State's economy. They were destroying our families. They really didn't seem to care. The only response I got in one of my hearings was, well, they will come to Pittsburgh. Well, that is not coming to West Virginia. Look, I am not here to just put down the Biden administration. I want to work with the administration, and I am going to be in a position to do that as ranking member on EPW. I want to be a part of the solution. I am not a climate denier. We all need to take care of our planet. We must be good stewards of our Earth, of our water. We know it is the right thing to do. The free market is already moving in that direction, which was part of the presentation yesterday. Private companies are cutting their emissions. That is awesome. And as we see the emission figures, they have gone way down over the last 15 years. Consumers moving toward greener products? That is great. I find myself doing that in my everyday living, and it is great. I feel like, in some ways, I am doing my small part at home. But a national energy transition really needs time, and the Biden administration needs to be very clear about what their timetables really are. They also need to be very clear about who is really in charge here. This is another one of my concerns. President Biden's nominees--Michael Regan; Jennifer Granholm; Brenda Mallory, at CEQ, Janet McCabe; and even Pete Buttigieg--have all been tasked with addressing climate. They are going to be tripping all over each other, before you even consider those avoiding Senate confirmation, process all of this together--McCarthy, Kerry, and a whole host of other czars who aren't accountable to Congress. So who is really going to be making the decisions? I think, from yesterday's press conference, it is pretty clear what the answer to that question could probably be. Will this Cabinet actually wield any power or will the decisions be made in the White House in an effort to avoid public and congressional scrutiny? The American people really need to know. West Virginians need to know. New Jerseyans need to know. I will definitely be asking those questions in the upcoming hearing. In closing, I would just like to say that America is a great and very proud energy producer. West Virginia has powered the country for decades, and we are incredibly proud of that fact. Coal, natural gas, oil, solar, wind, nuclear, biomass--our country has been incredibly blessed with energy resources, and using all of them keeps Americans safe and keeps our country running. Eliminating fossil fuels from our energy mix will lead to higher utility costs and less reliability. So whom does that really hurt? It hurts those in the lower and mid-income category--the ones that are hurting right now because of this pandemic. And you can just ask California about the rising cost and the rise in unreliability of the grid. Renewables can't power our country at 100 percent all the time right now. Maybe in the future, but right now they can't, and battery technology hasn't been able to fill that gap. But we can address climate change together through innovation and technology. We already have new markets for coal and carbon products. We know investing in carbon capture and utilization and storage is critical. For a lot of reasons it is a win-win on both sides. We know new technologies are progressing every single day, and we have been working on this issue in a bipartisan way. Senator Whitehouse and I were the main proponents of the 45Q credit for capturing carbon and reusing it. But I am very concerned that President Biden's Executive order yesterday really alienated some of the key players in the conversation, and I don't think that is the way to build unity. Here we go--back to the future, picking winners and losers. That is pitting American jobs against one and the other, and that can create and will create resentment across the country. So I urge the President--let's tackle these climate challenges together, not through overreaching Presidential orders and Federal regulations. This country has risen to every single challenge that we have had. This climate challenge is no different. I understand the urgency. I understand the issue. But with our American ingenuity, we can find these solutions together. So let's make our future one that we build together. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. CAPITO | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS187 | null | 2,235 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, this is a screen shot from a video taken during a school field trip on August 9, 2018. These are Yemeni schoolchildren going to school in a northern governorate inside the country, and they are on their way either to or back from a picnic that they were having with their classmates. As you can see, they are schoolchildren of elementary age--around 8, 9, 10 years old. They don't look any different than what school children here in the United States would look like on their way to a fun-filled school field trip. There is a little boy catching a little nap somehow amidst all of the den of the rest of his classmates so excited. They are excited because there isn't and there wasn't a lot of fun to be had for schoolchildren in Yemen today or in 2018. A civil war still plagues that country and plagues Yemeni children who are too often facing starvation and disease, but on this day, there was fun to be had. This is that schoolbus hours later. Forty children died when a U.S.-made bomb dropped from the sky and hit this schoolbus. Not every child on that bus died, miraculously, but 40 children on the bus and around the bus did. It was a war crime. The Saudis, in the aftermath of the incident, defended it saying that it was a legal action. They were targeting enemy leaders who were responsible for recruiting and training young children. They hit a schoolbus in the middle of the day, right next to a crowded marketplace. It wasn't on a lonely road. It was in a crowded area. It is why not only people on the bus died, but children and families surrounding the bus died as well. This was a military strike done, in part, as part of a coalition campaign of which the United States is a member. It is not just that we sold the bomb that hit this bus. We participated and still do participate in this military campaign in a myriad of ways For years, we flew planes in the sky that put fuel into the Saudi and Emirati jets that dropped these bombs. We embedded U.S. personnel in the operations center that planned these bombing campaigns, and maybe, most importantly of all, we lent moral authority to the Saudi-led campaign inside Yemen. But over the course of our time as a coalition partner with Saudi Arabia, the war in Yemen has been a national security apocalypse for the United States. Our bombs and our planes have been used to kill thousands of civilians; 17,000 civilians have died inside Yemen since the beginning of this war. The war has caused the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe on the ground inside Yemen. Over 100,000 children have died of starvation and disease. Yemen, since 2015, has been the site of the world's worst cholera outbreak anywhere in the world during all of our lifetimes--likely caused by the targeting of water treatment facilities by the coalition, of which the United States is a member. And inside this country, Yemenis rightfully blame the United States for this cataclysm. They know that it is our equipment, they know that it is our bombs, and they know that it is that moral authority that the United States gives to this war through our decision to continue to take part in it, human rights crime after human rights crime. It has radicalized a generation of Yemenis against the United States. It has made us part and parcel of repeated human rights violations, and it has created a chaotic environment on the ground in Yemen that has allowed for AQAP, the wing of al-Qaida with the clearest designs to hit the United States, again, room to govern and room to grow. AQAP and ISIS are able to operate and control territory inside Yemen because of the chaos created by this civil war. Iran has grown stronger. At the beginning, Iran and the Houthis, who are on the other side of this civil war, had a slightly tenuous connection, but as the war has dragged on, the Houthis have had to become more and more reliant on Iranian assistance and Iranian expertise. Iran has grown stronger and stronger inside Yemen and inside the region as this war persists. In every way, it has been a nightmare, from a security perspective, for the United States. But with the election and inauguration of President Biden, our participation in this national security cataclysm is coming to an end. I come to the floor today to thank the Biden administration and to thank the incoming Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, for their recognition that it is no longer in our security interest to be a part of this. The Biden administration has made several very important decisions that they have announced at the outset of their term in office: one, the plan to withdraw from the military coalition; second, a decision to suspend arm sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are the primary participants in this coalition. UAE has dramatically scaled back their involvement--to their credit. The Saudis continue to fight this war on the ground and in the air. And lastly--and, perhaps, most immediately importantly--the Trump administration announced that they were reserving an eleventh-hour decision by the Trump administration naming the Houthis a terrorist group. Now, the Houthis are incredibly bad actors. The Houthis are also guilty of war crimes in and around this conflict. They recruit child soldiers. They deliberately hold up aid and don't allow it to get to the citizens in areas under which they control. The Houthis have a lot to answer for as well. But by naming them a terrorist group, what the Trump administration effectively did was to stop the international aid community from being able to deliver any aid into Yemen because the Houthis control some of the most important ports, and 80 percent of the aid is commercial food. That would have all stopped if you couldn't run aid through ports controlled by an organization named at the eleventh hour by the Trump administration as a terrorist organization. The Biden administration has made a decision to suspend that designation to make sure that we are not going to end up with millions of people starving inside Yemen because the United States makes the decision to eliminate the ability of humanitarian groups to get food on the ground in Yemen. They are all incredibly important decisions that the administration has made--decisions supported by a majority of this body. We have voted here in the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to end the U.S. participation in the war in Yemen. We didn't have a veto-proof majority. So we couldn't overcome the President's veto. But there is a bipartisan coalition that believes the United Statesshouldn't have anything to do with this, and President Biden is now effectuating that bipartisan consensus in policy. Lastly, let me say this. Saudi Arabia is an important security partner for the United States. The UAE is an important security partner for the United States. We have an important counterterrorism relationship. The Saudis and the Emirates have been part of this groundbreaking detente with Israel, resulting in several recognition agreements. That is great for U.S. security interests in the region. But it is time for us to reset those relationships to make clear that if our Gulf partners are going to participate in actions inside the region that are terrible for our security interests, then we can't join them in those actions--a reset that includes an expectation that the Saudis and the Emirates address what is a very disturbing downward trend in the ability of individuals inside those countries to have political space with which to contest grievances with the regimes. It is time for us to make sure that our relationships with our Gulf allies are always consistent with U.S. national security endeavors, and the Biden administration is off to a very good start in resetting those relationships by pulling ourselves out of a war inside Yemen that has killed 17,000 civilians, caused 100,000 kids to die of starvation and disease, and ends up with our bombs doing this to a school bus full of 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS189 | null | 2,236 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Senate is considering the nomination of Mr. Mayorkas to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security. I come to the floor at this point, before we vote on that motion today, to raise questions about whether or not he should be in that position as Secretary of Homeland Security and the fact that I will be voting negative. I am familiar with Mr. Mayorkas from my past oversight of the EB-5 investment visa program. From 2009 until 2013, Mr. Mayorkas served as Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers that EB-5 visa program. During that time, more than 15 whistleblowers approached my office to raise questions about Mr. Mayorkas and his management of the EB-5 program. The whistleblowers allege that Mr. Mayorkas was intervening in routine and technical matters that were not typically handled by the Director of that Division. They also alleged that he was doing so at the request of well-connected Democratic politicians and other politically connected stakeholders. As my colleagues are aware, I have long criticized the fraud and abuse that are rampant in the EB-5 program, and I have continually reintroduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Leahy to reform the program. So it shouldn't be a surprise to any of my colleagues that when I hear from 15 different whistleblowers anything about the EB-5 program, I would further investigate it. I have also conducted consistent oversight of the EB-5 program across Presidential administrations, whether they were Democrat or Republican. So when whistleblowers approach my office with these serious allegations, as I said before, I am determined to get to the bottom of these matters. One of the cases in which whistleblowers said Mr. Mayorkas had intervened involved a company with ties to former Secretary Clinton's brother, Anthony Rodham. Mr. Rodham's company wasn't happy with the speed with which its applications were being conducted by the Customs and Immigration Service, so company representatives made repeated inquiries to the Department of Homeland Security and Mr. Mayorkas. And they did this in an effort to get Mr. Mayorkas to speed things up. My investigation found that between 2010 and 2013, Mr. Mayorkas had nearly a dozen contacts with that company, including direct communications with its attorneys. Mr. Mayorkas forwarded requests from the company along to his team, marking at least one of those forwarded messages as ``high priority.'' He became heavily involved in the process of revising a draft of a technical decision from his Division's Administrative Appeals Office that was initially unfavorable to the company. So, because of his involvement, in the end, th opinion was rewritten in a manner that was much more favorable to Mr. Rodham's company. In 2013, I wrote Mr. Mayorkas five letters about his management of the EB-5 program. In those letters, I asked him detailed questions in order to get his side of the story, and when he didn't answer my initial questions, I wrote him repeatedly to follow up. At this point, it has been more than 7 years, and I still have not received answers to more than 25 specific questions that I asked during that 2013 investigation. Following his nomination to serve as Department of Homeland Security Secretary, I wrote to Mr. Mayorkas again on January 15 to raise my concerns and to provide him yet another opportunity to answer my questions. He sent me a very short response on January 19 that--can you believe this?--still failed to answer most of the questions that I was trying to get answers for. It is very important for nominees confirmed by this body to be responsive to congressional oversight requests. Mr. Mayorkas consistently refused to respond to my questions, and that should concern all of us in the U.S. Senate because no Senator should be denied answers to his questions doing proper oversight of the executive branch. Furthermore, we now know that many of the whistleblower allegations made to my office were accurate. Many whistleblowers who approached my office raised similar concerns with John Roth, the Obama-appointed inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security at that time, who released his office's report detailing its investigation into these matters way back in 2015. In that 2015 report, Inspector General Roth found that ``employees' belief that Mr. Mayorkas favored certain politically powerful EB-5 stakeholders was reasonable.'' That is the end of quote of the inspector general's report. The IG also said that the number and variety of witnesses who came forward in his investigation was ``highly unusual.'' Allegations didn't come from one or two disgruntled employees, according to the inspector general; they came from current and retired career and noncareer members of the Senior Executive Service, as well as all levels of supervisors, immigration officers, attorneys, and employees involved in fraud detection and in national security. According to Inspector General Roth, the fact ``[t]hat so many individuals were willing to step forward and tell . . . what happened [was] evidence of deep resentment about Mr. Mayorkas's actions related to the EB-5 program.'' That is the end of quote from the IG report. The IG also found that Mr. Mayorkas's actions ``created an appearance of favoritism and special access'' in some EB-5 adjudication matters and that he ``created specific processes and revised existing policies in the EB-5 program to accommodate specific parties.'' In addition to the case involving Mr. Rodham's company, other cases reviewed by the inspector general involved well-connected Democrats, including former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In each of the cases reviewed by the inspector general where Mr. Mayorkas had intervened, the IG found that ``but for Mr. Mayorkas's intervention, the matter would have been decided differently.'' Witnesses were also fearful, and some only spoke to the IG after being assured of anonymity. One whistleblower told my office they were extremely uncomfortable in meetings with Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Mayorkas's actions raised serious concerns in 2013 when he was nominated to serve as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security during President Obama's second term. It is why he couldn't be confirmed to that role until after then-Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option on nominations. Not a single Republican Senator was willing to support his confirmation then, and no Senator should support it at this time. Finally, I am concerned that Mr. Mayorkas did not seem to express any regret whatsoever for his previous actions during his recent confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security Committee. Instead, he appeared to take the view that interfering in EB-5 cases on behalf of well-connected politicians and stakeholders was somehow the same as casework help offered to Americans who experienced problems with the international adoption systems. It was a baffling comparison. Now, every one of us Senators knows that when a nominee for the Cabinet or Subcabinet comes before our committee, they are always asked questions by Senators--for sure, I do it: Will you respond to our oversight letters, phone calls, or appearing before our committee? And every one of them says yes, but not every one of them--how would you say it? Not every one of them keeps their word, I guess is what I should say. So I suggest to them, if you really want to be honest to take that oath to answer in an honest fashion, maybe when you have that question asked, ``Will you respond to requests from committee members in our oversight work?'' you ought to say ``maybe'' instead of saying ``yes.'' Anyway, I think it is very clear that I strongly oppose Mr. Mayorkas's confirmation, and I urge all of my colleagues to reject it as well. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS190 | null | 2,237 |
formal | identify as | null | transphobic | Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, tomorrow is the 48th annual March for Life. Although this year's march will primarily be virtual, the importance of standing together to protect the unborn, the most vulnerable, and all life, is as important now as it has ever been. Forty-eight years ago, our country started down a dark path. Forty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court tragically ruled in Roe v. Wade, and since then, we have lost the lives of 62 million people--62 million and counting--unborn babies, precious lives, by abortion. I believe every human being is born with God-given dignity and potential. No court, no legislature, no law can take that away. Nevertheless, today, babies with Down syndrome are the most endangered on Earth. For me, this is very personal. Just under 3 years ago, our world was blessed with a sweet baby boy named Andrew. He has Down's. His parents are very close friends. Andrew is a true joy, and his family celebrates his life every single day. Our world truly would not be the same without him. But in the United States, 67 percent--67 percent--of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted, two out of three. For every person with Down syndrome alive today that you know or you meet--our friends, our family members, loved ones--two more are gone from this world because of abortion. This is chilling. In Europe, the numbers are even worse. In fact, in Iceland, because of abortion, the population of individuals with Down syndrome is virtually being eradicated. As prenatal screenings increase in availability, mothers frequently learn before birth if their baby has Down syndrome. Rather than giving supportive resources, these vulnerable moms are often pressured to abort the baby. We all too often hear of a false compassion that it would be better for unborn babies with Down Syndrome or other disabilities to not be brought into this world rather than live a life that might be different from other children. But that is not who we are as Americans. I am deeply concerned that for babies born with Down syndrome, abortion has become ``a tool of modern day eugenics,'' as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has said. It pains me to think about it. But we can't just think about this pain and the pain that it causes. We have to do something. We have to protect those precious lives at all costs. It is the duty of this body to end this injustice. That is why I am joining my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in introducing the Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act, which will prohibit abortions that are sought because of a diagnosis that an unborn child has or may have Down syndrome. This effort has the overwhelming support of the American public. In fact, just yesterday, a new Knights of Columbus-Marist poll found that 70 percent of Americans oppose aborting a child on the basis that the child will be born with Down syndrome--70 percent. In fact, that includes over half of those who identify as pro-choice. This issue also sadly exposes a terrible hypocrisy we are seeing among supporters of abortion on demand. In fact, today, most Republicans and Democrats here in Congress are unified in their support for the Special Olympics and for protecting individuals with disabilities. Yet many of my colleagues across the aisle will oppose this commonsense legislation to stop the most lethal kind of discrimination imaginable, and that is being singled out and brutally killed because of a Down syndrome diagnosis. It is shameful. As Henry Hyde famously said: ``The promise of America is not just for the privileged, the planned and the perfect.'' It is our duty to protect every innocent life, no matter how small, no matter how many chromosomes they may have. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DAINES | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS191-2 | null | 2,238 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, tomorrow is the 48th annual March for Life. Although this year's march will primarily be virtual, the importance of standing together to protect the unborn, the most vulnerable, and all life, is as important now as it has ever been. Forty-eight years ago, our country started down a dark path. Forty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court tragically ruled in Roe v. Wade, and since then, we have lost the lives of 62 million people--62 million and counting--unborn babies, precious lives, by abortion. I believe every human being is born with God-given dignity and potential. No court, no legislature, no law can take that away. Nevertheless, today, babies with Down syndrome are the most endangered on Earth. For me, this is very personal. Just under 3 years ago, our world was blessed with a sweet baby boy named Andrew. He has Down's. His parents are very close friends. Andrew is a true joy, and his family celebrates his life every single day. Our world truly would not be the same without him. But in the United States, 67 percent--67 percent--of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted, two out of three. For every person with Down syndrome alive today that you know or you meet--our friends, our family members, loved ones--two more are gone from this world because of abortion. This is chilling. In Europe, the numbers are even worse. In fact, in Iceland, because of abortion, the population of individuals with Down syndrome is virtually being eradicated. As prenatal screenings increase in availability, mothers frequently learn before birth if their baby has Down syndrome. Rather than giving supportive resources, these vulnerable moms are often pressured to abort the baby. We all too often hear of a false compassion that it would be better for unborn babies with Down Syndrome or other disabilities to not be brought into this world rather than live a life that might be different from other children. But that is not who we are as Americans. I am deeply concerned that for babies born with Down syndrome, abortion has become ``a tool of modern day eugenics,'' as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has said. It pains me to think about it. But we can't just think about this pain and the pain that it causes. We have to do something. We have to protect those precious lives at all costs. It is the duty of this body to end this injustice. That is why I am joining my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in introducing the Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act, which will prohibit abortions that are sought because of a diagnosis that an unborn child has or may have Down syndrome. This effort has the overwhelming support of the American public. In fact, just yesterday, a new Knights of Columbus-Marist poll found that 70 percent of Americans oppose aborting a child on the basis that the child will be born with Down syndrome--70 percent. In fact, that includes over half of those who identify as pro-choice. This issue also sadly exposes a terrible hypocrisy we are seeing among supporters of abortion on demand. In fact, today, most Republicans and Democrats here in Congress are unified in their support for the Special Olympics and for protecting individuals with disabilities. Yet many of my colleagues across the aisle will oppose this commonsense legislation to stop the most lethal kind of discrimination imaginable, and that is being singled out and brutally killed because of a Down syndrome diagnosis. It is shameful. As Henry Hyde famously said: ``The promise of America is not just for the privileged, the planned and the perfect.'' It is our duty to protect every innocent life, no matter how small, no matter how many chromosomes they may have. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DAINES | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS191-2 | null | 2,239 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues today to speak in support of the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There is no question that Ali Mayorkas is qualified for this position. He previously served as the Director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, then as Deputy Secretary at DHS. Today, I want to tell you about Ali Mayorkas's story. I want to tell you why he is the right pick for this position. And I want to tell you why we can achieve what we need to with Mr. Mayorkas leading the Department of Homeland Security. During his hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, my fellow committee members and I had a chance to hear from Mr. Mayorkas and hear his family history. He told us the harrowing story of his family fleeing persecution, traveling to a new country in search of freedom, acceptance, and a safe place to call home. During the Holocaust, Mr. Mayorkas's mother lost her paternal grandparents and seven of her uncles simply for being Jewish--simply because of the faith they practiced. His mother and his maternal grandparents fled, but they fled in order to survive. But the story of Mr. Mayorkas's family was far from over. His parents fled Cuba during Castro's revolution, bringing Mr. Mayorkas and his sister here to the United States in 1960. They came here as refugees searching for freedom, searching for acceptance, searching for safety. Ali Mayorkas is an American success story. He came here as a child. His family made a life here. He pursued an education. He dedicated his life to public service. He worked hard to give back to the Nation that gave his family so much. And now, Mr. Mayorkas has volunteered to serve his country once again.In this new role, he will work to keep our Nation safe and secure while ensuring that we treat all human beings with dignity and respect. Under the last Presidential administration, we saw unimaginable cruelty--family members separated from each other, children taken from their mothers' arms. We saw a total disregard of the struggles of refugees facing persecution in their home countries and making the heartbreaking choice to leave and make the dangerous journey to the United States. I know that under the leadership of Secretary Mayorkas, our Department of Homeland Security will strive to uphold the values of our Nation. He will also bring much needed stability to the Department. He will work to reverse the cruel and heartless policies of the previous administration. He will work to protect Dreamers and TPS holders. He will work on smart solutions to secure our border. And he will work with Congress to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is not all he will do at the DHS. Under Mr. Mayorkas's leadership, he will work to ensure the safety and security of our homeland--the homeland he was brought to as a child, the homeland that he and his family have made their own. I spoke of the persecution that Ali Mayorkas's family faced during the Holocaust--a threat of anti-Semitism and White supremacy. Well, it still persists today, and it is growing right here in the United States and everywhere across the globe. Last year, a DHS assessment concluded that ``racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists--specifically white supremacist extremists--will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.'' We have seen that violent extremism in action. We saw it on January 6 in this very city against this legislative body and in this very Chamber. When I asked Ali Mayorkas about this issue during our committee hearing, he made clear that he understands the threat that White supremacy, anti-Semitism, and extremism pose to the health of our Nation and to the health of our democracy. If we are going to fight hatred and violent extremism, we need someone leading the charge who understands and takes seriously the threat to all Americans--the threats to our children, to our schools, to our workplaces, and to our places of worship. He is committed to addressing online radicalization and strengthening the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to ensure that houses of worship and other nonprofit organizations are kept safe from potential terror attacks. So whether it is combating extremism, foreign or domestic terrorism, cyber attacks, or adversaries from abroad, Mr. Mayorkas expressed a clear commitment to keeping our Nation safe and is fully prepared and qualified to serve as the head of DHS. Ali Mayorkas is the right pick to lead this Department, and I urge swift confirmation so that he can get to work immediately for us and our country. I will vote for Ali Mayorkas, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ROSEN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS191-3 | null | 2,240 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues today to speak in support of the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There is no question that Ali Mayorkas is qualified for this position. He previously served as the Director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, then as Deputy Secretary at DHS. Today, I want to tell you about Ali Mayorkas's story. I want to tell you why he is the right pick for this position. And I want to tell you why we can achieve what we need to with Mr. Mayorkas leading the Department of Homeland Security. During his hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, my fellow committee members and I had a chance to hear from Mr. Mayorkas and hear his family history. He told us the harrowing story of his family fleeing persecution, traveling to a new country in search of freedom, acceptance, and a safe place to call home. During the Holocaust, Mr. Mayorkas's mother lost her paternal grandparents and seven of her uncles simply for being Jewish--simply because of the faith they practiced. His mother and his maternal grandparents fled, but they fled in order to survive. But the story of Mr. Mayorkas's family was far from over. His parents fled Cuba during Castro's revolution, bringing Mr. Mayorkas and his sister here to the United States in 1960. They came here as refugees searching for freedom, searching for acceptance, searching for safety. Ali Mayorkas is an American success story. He came here as a child. His family made a life here. He pursued an education. He dedicated his life to public service. He worked hard to give back to the Nation that gave his family so much. And now, Mr. Mayorkas has volunteered to serve his country once again.In this new role, he will work to keep our Nation safe and secure while ensuring that we treat all human beings with dignity and respect. Under the last Presidential administration, we saw unimaginable cruelty--family members separated from each other, children taken from their mothers' arms. We saw a total disregard of the struggles of refugees facing persecution in their home countries and making the heartbreaking choice to leave and make the dangerous journey to the United States. I know that under the leadership of Secretary Mayorkas, our Department of Homeland Security will strive to uphold the values of our Nation. He will also bring much needed stability to the Department. He will work to reverse the cruel and heartless policies of the previous administration. He will work to protect Dreamers and TPS holders. He will work on smart solutions to secure our border. And he will work with Congress to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is not all he will do at the DHS. Under Mr. Mayorkas's leadership, he will work to ensure the safety and security of our homeland--the homeland he was brought to as a child, the homeland that he and his family have made their own. I spoke of the persecution that Ali Mayorkas's family faced during the Holocaust--a threat of anti-Semitism and White supremacy. Well, it still persists today, and it is growing right here in the United States and everywhere across the globe. Last year, a DHS assessment concluded that ``racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists--specifically white supremacist extremists--will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.'' We have seen that violent extremism in action. We saw it on January 6 in this very city against this legislative body and in this very Chamber. When I asked Ali Mayorkas about this issue during our committee hearing, he made clear that he understands the threat that White supremacy, anti-Semitism, and extremism pose to the health of our Nation and to the health of our democracy. If we are going to fight hatred and violent extremism, we need someone leading the charge who understands and takes seriously the threat to all Americans--the threats to our children, to our schools, to our workplaces, and to our places of worship. He is committed to addressing online radicalization and strengthening the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to ensure that houses of worship and other nonprofit organizations are kept safe from potential terror attacks. So whether it is combating extremism, foreign or domestic terrorism, cyber attacks, or adversaries from abroad, Mr. Mayorkas expressed a clear commitment to keeping our Nation safe and is fully prepared and qualified to serve as the head of DHS. Ali Mayorkas is the right pick to lead this Department, and I urge swift confirmation so that he can get to work immediately for us and our country. I will vote for Ali Mayorkas, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ROSEN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS191-3 | null | 2,241 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues today to speak in support of the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There is no question that Ali Mayorkas is qualified for this position. He previously served as the Director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, then as Deputy Secretary at DHS. Today, I want to tell you about Ali Mayorkas's story. I want to tell you why he is the right pick for this position. And I want to tell you why we can achieve what we need to with Mr. Mayorkas leading the Department of Homeland Security. During his hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, my fellow committee members and I had a chance to hear from Mr. Mayorkas and hear his family history. He told us the harrowing story of his family fleeing persecution, traveling to a new country in search of freedom, acceptance, and a safe place to call home. During the Holocaust, Mr. Mayorkas's mother lost her paternal grandparents and seven of her uncles simply for being Jewish--simply because of the faith they practiced. His mother and his maternal grandparents fled, but they fled in order to survive. But the story of Mr. Mayorkas's family was far from over. His parents fled Cuba during Castro's revolution, bringing Mr. Mayorkas and his sister here to the United States in 1960. They came here as refugees searching for freedom, searching for acceptance, searching for safety. Ali Mayorkas is an American success story. He came here as a child. His family made a life here. He pursued an education. He dedicated his life to public service. He worked hard to give back to the Nation that gave his family so much. And now, Mr. Mayorkas has volunteered to serve his country once again.In this new role, he will work to keep our Nation safe and secure while ensuring that we treat all human beings with dignity and respect. Under the last Presidential administration, we saw unimaginable cruelty--family members separated from each other, children taken from their mothers' arms. We saw a total disregard of the struggles of refugees facing persecution in their home countries and making the heartbreaking choice to leave and make the dangerous journey to the United States. I know that under the leadership of Secretary Mayorkas, our Department of Homeland Security will strive to uphold the values of our Nation. He will also bring much needed stability to the Department. He will work to reverse the cruel and heartless policies of the previous administration. He will work to protect Dreamers and TPS holders. He will work on smart solutions to secure our border. And he will work with Congress to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is not all he will do at the DHS. Under Mr. Mayorkas's leadership, he will work to ensure the safety and security of our homeland--the homeland he was brought to as a child, the homeland that he and his family have made their own. I spoke of the persecution that Ali Mayorkas's family faced during the Holocaust--a threat of anti-Semitism and White supremacy. Well, it still persists today, and it is growing right here in the United States and everywhere across the globe. Last year, a DHS assessment concluded that ``racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists--specifically white supremacist extremists--will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.'' We have seen that violent extremism in action. We saw it on January 6 in this very city against this legislative body and in this very Chamber. When I asked Ali Mayorkas about this issue during our committee hearing, he made clear that he understands the threat that White supremacy, anti-Semitism, and extremism pose to the health of our Nation and to the health of our democracy. If we are going to fight hatred and violent extremism, we need someone leading the charge who understands and takes seriously the threat to all Americans--the threats to our children, to our schools, to our workplaces, and to our places of worship. He is committed to addressing online radicalization and strengthening the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to ensure that houses of worship and other nonprofit organizations are kept safe from potential terror attacks. So whether it is combating extremism, foreign or domestic terrorism, cyber attacks, or adversaries from abroad, Mr. Mayorkas expressed a clear commitment to keeping our Nation safe and is fully prepared and qualified to serve as the head of DHS. Ali Mayorkas is the right pick to lead this Department, and I urge swift confirmation so that he can get to work immediately for us and our country. I will vote for Ali Mayorkas, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ROSEN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS191-3 | null | 2,242 |
formal | secure our border | null | anti-Latino | Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues today to speak in support of the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There is no question that Ali Mayorkas is qualified for this position. He previously served as the Director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, then as Deputy Secretary at DHS. Today, I want to tell you about Ali Mayorkas's story. I want to tell you why he is the right pick for this position. And I want to tell you why we can achieve what we need to with Mr. Mayorkas leading the Department of Homeland Security. During his hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, my fellow committee members and I had a chance to hear from Mr. Mayorkas and hear his family history. He told us the harrowing story of his family fleeing persecution, traveling to a new country in search of freedom, acceptance, and a safe place to call home. During the Holocaust, Mr. Mayorkas's mother lost her paternal grandparents and seven of her uncles simply for being Jewish--simply because of the faith they practiced. His mother and his maternal grandparents fled, but they fled in order to survive. But the story of Mr. Mayorkas's family was far from over. His parents fled Cuba during Castro's revolution, bringing Mr. Mayorkas and his sister here to the United States in 1960. They came here as refugees searching for freedom, searching for acceptance, searching for safety. Ali Mayorkas is an American success story. He came here as a child. His family made a life here. He pursued an education. He dedicated his life to public service. He worked hard to give back to the Nation that gave his family so much. And now, Mr. Mayorkas has volunteered to serve his country once again.In this new role, he will work to keep our Nation safe and secure while ensuring that we treat all human beings with dignity and respect. Under the last Presidential administration, we saw unimaginable cruelty--family members separated from each other, children taken from their mothers' arms. We saw a total disregard of the struggles of refugees facing persecution in their home countries and making the heartbreaking choice to leave and make the dangerous journey to the United States. I know that under the leadership of Secretary Mayorkas, our Department of Homeland Security will strive to uphold the values of our Nation. He will also bring much needed stability to the Department. He will work to reverse the cruel and heartless policies of the previous administration. He will work to protect Dreamers and TPS holders. He will work on smart solutions to secure our border. And he will work with Congress to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is not all he will do at the DHS. Under Mr. Mayorkas's leadership, he will work to ensure the safety and security of our homeland--the homeland he was brought to as a child, the homeland that he and his family have made their own. I spoke of the persecution that Ali Mayorkas's family faced during the Holocaust--a threat of anti-Semitism and White supremacy. Well, it still persists today, and it is growing right here in the United States and everywhere across the globe. Last year, a DHS assessment concluded that ``racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists--specifically white supremacist extremists--will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.'' We have seen that violent extremism in action. We saw it on January 6 in this very city against this legislative body and in this very Chamber. When I asked Ali Mayorkas about this issue during our committee hearing, he made clear that he understands the threat that White supremacy, anti-Semitism, and extremism pose to the health of our Nation and to the health of our democracy. If we are going to fight hatred and violent extremism, we need someone leading the charge who understands and takes seriously the threat to all Americans--the threats to our children, to our schools, to our workplaces, and to our places of worship. He is committed to addressing online radicalization and strengthening the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to ensure that houses of worship and other nonprofit organizations are kept safe from potential terror attacks. So whether it is combating extremism, foreign or domestic terrorism, cyber attacks, or adversaries from abroad, Mr. Mayorkas expressed a clear commitment to keeping our Nation safe and is fully prepared and qualified to serve as the head of DHS. Ali Mayorkas is the right pick to lead this Department, and I urge swift confirmation so that he can get to work immediately for us and our country. I will vote for Ali Mayorkas, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ROSEN | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS191-3 | null | 2,243 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Alejandro Mayorkas's nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As recent events have shown, our country is facing dangerous threats to our security and to our national security. Violence and domestic terrorism, spurred on by White supremacist ideology, anti-government sentiment, and conspiracy theories, continue to rise. We saw the tragic and deadly result of that growing threat right here in the Capitol just 3 weeks ago, and just yesterday the Department of Homeland Security issued a counterterrorism bulletin, warning of possible further violence in the coming weeks. Earlier this year, we learned that hackers--likely backed by a foreign adversary--carried out the largest cyber security breach of our Federal Government. We still do not have all of the answers on how they were able to infiltrate our networks or what information they have access to. All this is happening while we are struggling to control a once-in-a-century pandemic that has, tragically, taken over 425,000 American lives so far. The Department of Homeland Security should be leading a forceful response to these complex and significant threats and protecting Americans, but the Department and its more than 240,000 employees need a qualified, experienced, and Senate-confirmed leader at the helm--a leader like Alejandro Mayorkas. Mr. Mayorkas has built an extensive national security record throughout his career in public service. He has been confirmed by the Senate three times, including twice for senior roles at the Department of Homeland Security. Not only did he help lead the Obama administration's successful responses to the Ebola and Zika epidemics, he also played a critical role in protecting the homeland from foreign and domestic terrorism, strengthened our national cyber security, and increased cooperation between the Federal Government and local law enforcement agencies. Not only does he stand ready to lead the Department as it tackles serious and challenging national security threats, Mr. Mayorkas also understands that the Department and its mission have a real effect on people and their families. His own family's journey to the United States--first fleeing Nazi occupation in Eastern Europe and later immigrating to the United States from Cuba--has given him a unique perspective on the very heart of the Department's mission--something that was certainly lost during the previous administration. Mr. Mayorkas is uniquely qualified to make sure the Department of Homeland Security is working to protect people from all backgrounds, all communities, and all walks of life. Mr. Mayorkas has the qualifications, the experience, and the record of accomplishments to provide steady leadership, to help restore trust in the Department, and to safeguard our national security. That is why it is no surprise that his nomination has been endorsed by four former Homeland Security Secretaries and a former Acting Secretary from both Democratic and Republican administrations. He also has the support of a group of more than 30 cyber security experts, 34 former Homeland Security officials, and multiple law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police. Within this body, there are certainly very different views of the role of the Federal Government, but one thing I think we can all agree on as a top priority is keeping Americans safe. It is our No. 1 job, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me today in supporting the confirmation of Mr. Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security so that he can quickly begin the important and essential task of working to strengthen our national security and safeguarding all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote begin immediately. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS192 | null | 2,244 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Alejandro Mayorkas's nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As recent events have shown, our country is facing dangerous threats to our security and to our national security. Violence and domestic terrorism, spurred on by White supremacist ideology, anti-government sentiment, and conspiracy theories, continue to rise. We saw the tragic and deadly result of that growing threat right here in the Capitol just 3 weeks ago, and just yesterday the Department of Homeland Security issued a counterterrorism bulletin, warning of possible further violence in the coming weeks. Earlier this year, we learned that hackers--likely backed by a foreign adversary--carried out the largest cyber security breach of our Federal Government. We still do not have all of the answers on how they were able to infiltrate our networks or what information they have access to. All this is happening while we are struggling to control a once-in-a-century pandemic that has, tragically, taken over 425,000 American lives so far. The Department of Homeland Security should be leading a forceful response to these complex and significant threats and protecting Americans, but the Department and its more than 240,000 employees need a qualified, experienced, and Senate-confirmed leader at the helm--a leader like Alejandro Mayorkas. Mr. Mayorkas has built an extensive national security record throughout his career in public service. He has been confirmed by the Senate three times, including twice for senior roles at the Department of Homeland Security. Not only did he help lead the Obama administration's successful responses to the Ebola and Zika epidemics, he also played a critical role in protecting the homeland from foreign and domestic terrorism, strengthened our national cyber security, and increased cooperation between the Federal Government and local law enforcement agencies. Not only does he stand ready to lead the Department as it tackles serious and challenging national security threats, Mr. Mayorkas also understands that the Department and its mission have a real effect on people and their families. His own family's journey to the United States--first fleeing Nazi occupation in Eastern Europe and later immigrating to the United States from Cuba--has given him a unique perspective on the very heart of the Department's mission--something that was certainly lost during the previous administration. Mr. Mayorkas is uniquely qualified to make sure the Department of Homeland Security is working to protect people from all backgrounds, all communities, and all walks of life. Mr. Mayorkas has the qualifications, the experience, and the record of accomplishments to provide steady leadership, to help restore trust in the Department, and to safeguard our national security. That is why it is no surprise that his nomination has been endorsed by four former Homeland Security Secretaries and a former Acting Secretary from both Democratic and Republican administrations. He also has the support of a group of more than 30 cyber security experts, 34 former Homeland Security officials, and multiple law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police. Within this body, there are certainly very different views of the role of the Federal Government, but one thing I think we can all agree on as a top priority is keeping Americans safe. It is our No. 1 job, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me today in supporting the confirmation of Mr. Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security so that he can quickly begin the important and essential task of working to strengthen our national security and safeguarding all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote begin immediately. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS192 | null | 2,245 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Alejandro Mayorkas's nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As recent events have shown, our country is facing dangerous threats to our security and to our national security. Violence and domestic terrorism, spurred on by White supremacist ideology, anti-government sentiment, and conspiracy theories, continue to rise. We saw the tragic and deadly result of that growing threat right here in the Capitol just 3 weeks ago, and just yesterday the Department of Homeland Security issued a counterterrorism bulletin, warning of possible further violence in the coming weeks. Earlier this year, we learned that hackers--likely backed by a foreign adversary--carried out the largest cyber security breach of our Federal Government. We still do not have all of the answers on how they were able to infiltrate our networks or what information they have access to. All this is happening while we are struggling to control a once-in-a-century pandemic that has, tragically, taken over 425,000 American lives so far. The Department of Homeland Security should be leading a forceful response to these complex and significant threats and protecting Americans, but the Department and its more than 240,000 employees need a qualified, experienced, and Senate-confirmed leader at the helm--a leader like Alejandro Mayorkas. Mr. Mayorkas has built an extensive national security record throughout his career in public service. He has been confirmed by the Senate three times, including twice for senior roles at the Department of Homeland Security. Not only did he help lead the Obama administration's successful responses to the Ebola and Zika epidemics, he also played a critical role in protecting the homeland from foreign and domestic terrorism, strengthened our national cyber security, and increased cooperation between the Federal Government and local law enforcement agencies. Not only does he stand ready to lead the Department as it tackles serious and challenging national security threats, Mr. Mayorkas also understands that the Department and its mission have a real effect on people and their families. His own family's journey to the United States--first fleeing Nazi occupation in Eastern Europe and later immigrating to the United States from Cuba--has given him a unique perspective on the very heart of the Department's mission--something that was certainly lost during the previous administration. Mr. Mayorkas is uniquely qualified to make sure the Department of Homeland Security is working to protect people from all backgrounds, all communities, and all walks of life. Mr. Mayorkas has the qualifications, the experience, and the record of accomplishments to provide steady leadership, to help restore trust in the Department, and to safeguard our national security. That is why it is no surprise that his nomination has been endorsed by four former Homeland Security Secretaries and a former Acting Secretary from both Democratic and Republican administrations. He also has the support of a group of more than 30 cyber security experts, 34 former Homeland Security officials, and multiple law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police. Within this body, there are certainly very different views of the role of the Federal Government, but one thing I think we can all agree on as a top priority is keeping Americans safe. It is our No. 1 job, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me today in supporting the confirmation of Mr. Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security so that he can quickly begin the important and essential task of working to strengthen our national security and safeguarding all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote begin immediately. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS192 | null | 2,246 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Alejandro Mayorkas's nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As recent events have shown, our country is facing dangerous threats to our security and to our national security. Violence and domestic terrorism, spurred on by White supremacist ideology, anti-government sentiment, and conspiracy theories, continue to rise. We saw the tragic and deadly result of that growing threat right here in the Capitol just 3 weeks ago, and just yesterday the Department of Homeland Security issued a counterterrorism bulletin, warning of possible further violence in the coming weeks. Earlier this year, we learned that hackers--likely backed by a foreign adversary--carried out the largest cyber security breach of our Federal Government. We still do not have all of the answers on how they were able to infiltrate our networks or what information they have access to. All this is happening while we are struggling to control a once-in-a-century pandemic that has, tragically, taken over 425,000 American lives so far. The Department of Homeland Security should be leading a forceful response to these complex and significant threats and protecting Americans, but the Department and its more than 240,000 employees need a qualified, experienced, and Senate-confirmed leader at the helm--a leader like Alejandro Mayorkas. Mr. Mayorkas has built an extensive national security record throughout his career in public service. He has been confirmed by the Senate three times, including twice for senior roles at the Department of Homeland Security. Not only did he help lead the Obama administration's successful responses to the Ebola and Zika epidemics, he also played a critical role in protecting the homeland from foreign and domestic terrorism, strengthened our national cyber security, and increased cooperation between the Federal Government and local law enforcement agencies. Not only does he stand ready to lead the Department as it tackles serious and challenging national security threats, Mr. Mayorkas also understands that the Department and its mission have a real effect on people and their families. His own family's journey to the United States--first fleeing Nazi occupation in Eastern Europe and later immigrating to the United States from Cuba--has given him a unique perspective on the very heart of the Department's mission--something that was certainly lost during the previous administration. Mr. Mayorkas is uniquely qualified to make sure the Department of Homeland Security is working to protect people from all backgrounds, all communities, and all walks of life. Mr. Mayorkas has the qualifications, the experience, and the record of accomplishments to provide steady leadership, to help restore trust in the Department, and to safeguard our national security. That is why it is no surprise that his nomination has been endorsed by four former Homeland Security Secretaries and a former Acting Secretary from both Democratic and Republican administrations. He also has the support of a group of more than 30 cyber security experts, 34 former Homeland Security officials, and multiple law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police. Within this body, there are certainly very different views of the role of the Federal Government, but one thing I think we can all agree on as a top priority is keeping Americans safe. It is our No. 1 job, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me today in supporting the confirmation of Mr. Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security so that he can quickly begin the important and essential task of working to strengthen our national security and safeguarding all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote begin immediately. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS192 | null | 2,247 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-117. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for Regulations and Legislation, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act'' (FHEO 2020-01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-118. A communication from the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers'' (RIN3235-AM06) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-119. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Activities and Operations of National Banks and Federal Savings Associations'' (RIN1557-AE74) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 5, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-120. A communication from the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Exemption from the Definition of `Clearing Agency' for Certain Activities of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities'' (RIN3235-AK74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-121. A communication from the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Custody of Digital Asset Securities by Special Purpose Broker-Dealers'' (17 CFR Part 240) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-122. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Temporary Asset Thresholds'' (RIN1557-AF06) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 5, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-123. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to North Korea that was declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-124. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Annual Report of Interdiction of Aircraft Engaged in Illicit Drug Trafficking; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-125. A communication from the Vice President, Office of External Affairs, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Annual Report on Development Impact for Fiscal Year 2019 for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-126. A communication from the Managing Director, Congressional Affairs, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report on Activities: Independent Accountability Mechanism, Fiscal Year 2020''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-127. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2020- 0104--2020-0107); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-128. A communication from the Senior Bureau Official, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Australia Group; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-129. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the issuance of an Executive Order declaring additional steps to be taken concerning the national emergency with respect to significant malicious cyber enabled activities declared in Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, received during adjournment of the Senate on January 18, 2021; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-130. A communication from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2020, including the Office of Inspector General's Auditor's Report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-131. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 21st Century IDEA 2020 report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-132. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-133. A communication from the Chair of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-134. A communication from the Director of the Office of Financial Reporting and Policy, Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``FY 2020 Agency Financial Report''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-135. A communication from the Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2018 Information Collection Budget of the United States Government''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-136. A communication from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief FOIA Officer, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2019 Data Mining Report to Congress''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-137. A communication from the Chairman, Board of Governors, United States Postal Service, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Postal Services' Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-138. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 2019 Annual Report to the President and Congress; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-139. A communication from the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2017 NASA FAIR Act Inventory''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-140. A communication from the Secretary of the Board of Governors, United States Postal Service, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's annual report relative to its compliance with Section 3686(c) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-141. A communication from the Director of the Peace Corps, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Corps' Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-142. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Uniform Compliance Date for Food Labeling Regulations'' (Docket No. FDA-2000-N-0011) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 8, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-143. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of Benefits and Assets; Expected Retirement Age'' (29 CFR Part 4044) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-144. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Department of Health and Human Services Good Guidance Practices'' (RIN0906-AC17) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-145. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Department of Health and Human Services Good Guidance Practices'' (RIN0991-AC17) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-146. A communication from the Compliance Specialist, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Tip Regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)'' (RIN1235-AA21) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 5, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-147. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees'' (RIN1210-ZA29) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-148. A communication from the Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the report entitled ``2019 Report of Statistics Required by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-149. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure'' (RIN1125- AA96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-150. A communication from the Chief of the Regulatory Coordination Division, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Temporary Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2A Nonimmigrants Due to the COVID-19 National Emergency; Extension of Certain Flexibilities'' (RIN1615-AC55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-151. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal'' (RIN1125-AA93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-152. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Executive Office for Immigration Review; Fee Review'' (RIN1125-AA90) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-153. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rules of Practice to Allocate the Burden of Persuasion on Motions to Amend in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board'' (RIN0651-AD34) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-154. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Small Entity Government Use License Exception'' (RIN0651- AD33) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-155. A communication from the Chief of the Regulatory Coordination Division, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Modification of Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking to File Cap- Subject H-1B Petitions'' (RIN1615-AC61) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2021; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-156. A communication from the Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report On The Continuing Need For Authorized Bankruptcy Judgeships''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-157. A communication from the Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report to Congress concerning intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-158. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Las Vegas, Nevada'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020- 0353)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 5, 2020; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS195 | null | 2,248 |
formal | religious freedom | null | homophobic | Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Hawley, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Rounds) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Con. Res. 4 Whereas the democracy of the United States is rooted in the fundamental truth that all people are created equal, endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Whereas the freedom of conscience was highly valued by-- (1) individuals seeking religious freedom who settled in the colonies in the United States; (2) the founders of the United States; and (3) Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, dated February 4, 1809, that ``[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprizes of the civil authority''; Whereas the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was-- (1) drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who considered the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to be one of his greatest achievements; (2) enacted on January 16, 1786; and (3) the forerunner to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas section 2(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)) states that-- (1) ``[t]he right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States''; and (2) religious freedom was established by the founders of the United States ``in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation''; Whereas the role of religion in society and public life in the United States has a long and robust tradition; Whereas individuals who have studied the democracy of the United States from an international perspective, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, have noted that religion plays a central role in preserving the Government of the United States because religion provides the moral base required for democracy to succeed; Whereas, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that ``people of many faiths may be united in a community of tolerance and devotion''; Whereas the principle of religious freedom ``has guided our Nation forward'', as expressed by the 44th President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2011, and freedom of religion ``is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe'', as expressed by that President of the United States on Religious Freedom Day in 2013; Whereas ``[f]reedom of religion is a fundamental human right that must be upheld by every nation and guaranteed by every government'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1999; Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects-- (1) the right of individuals to freely express and act on the religious beliefs of those individuals; and (2) individuals from coercion to profess or act on a religious belief to which those individuals do not adhere; Whereas ``our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in remarks accompanying the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.); Whereas, for countless people of the United States, faith is an integral part of every aspect of daily life and is not limited to the homes, houses of worship, or doctrinal creeds of those individuals; Whereas ``religious faith has inspired many of our fellow citizens to help build a better Nation'' in which ``people of faith continue to wage a determined campaign to meet needs and fight suffering'', as expressed by the 43rd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2003; Whereas, ``[f]rom its birth to this day, the United States has prized this legacy of religious freedom and honored this heritage by standing for religious freedom and offering refuge to those suffering religious persecution'', as noted in section 2(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)); Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote-- (1) in 1798 that each right encompassed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is dependent on the other rights described in that Amendment, ``thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others''; and (2) in 1822 that the constitutional freedom of religion is ``the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights''; Whereas religious freedom ``has been integral to the preservation and development of the United States'', and ``the free exercise of religion goes hand in hand with the preservation of our other rights'', as expressed by the 41st President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1993; and Whereas we ``continue to proclaim the fundamental right of all peoples to believe and worship according to their own conscience, to affirm their beliefs openly and freely, and to practice their faith without fear or intimidation'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1998: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) on Religious Freedom Day on January 16, 2021, honors the 235th anniversary of the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom; and (2) affirms that-- (A) for individuals of any faith and individuals of no faith, religious freedom includes the right of an individual to live, work, associate, and worship in accordance with the beliefs of the individual; (B) all people of the United States can be unified in supporting religious freedom, regardless of differing individual beliefs, because religious freedom is a fundamental human right; and (C) ``the American people will remain forever unshackled in matters of faith'', as expressed by the 44th President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2012. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS204-2 | null | 2,249 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Hawley, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Rounds) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Con. Res. 4 Whereas the democracy of the United States is rooted in the fundamental truth that all people are created equal, endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Whereas the freedom of conscience was highly valued by-- (1) individuals seeking religious freedom who settled in the colonies in the United States; (2) the founders of the United States; and (3) Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, dated February 4, 1809, that ``[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprizes of the civil authority''; Whereas the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was-- (1) drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who considered the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to be one of his greatest achievements; (2) enacted on January 16, 1786; and (3) the forerunner to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas section 2(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)) states that-- (1) ``[t]he right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States''; and (2) religious freedom was established by the founders of the United States ``in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation''; Whereas the role of religion in society and public life in the United States has a long and robust tradition; Whereas individuals who have studied the democracy of the United States from an international perspective, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, have noted that religion plays a central role in preserving the Government of the United States because religion provides the moral base required for democracy to succeed; Whereas, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that ``people of many faiths may be united in a community of tolerance and devotion''; Whereas the principle of religious freedom ``has guided our Nation forward'', as expressed by the 44th President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2011, and freedom of religion ``is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe'', as expressed by that President of the United States on Religious Freedom Day in 2013; Whereas ``[f]reedom of religion is a fundamental human right that must be upheld by every nation and guaranteed by every government'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1999; Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects-- (1) the right of individuals to freely express and act on the religious beliefs of those individuals; and (2) individuals from coercion to profess or act on a religious belief to which those individuals do not adhere; Whereas ``our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in remarks accompanying the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.); Whereas, for countless people of the United States, faith is an integral part of every aspect of daily life and is not limited to the homes, houses of worship, or doctrinal creeds of those individuals; Whereas ``religious faith has inspired many of our fellow citizens to help build a better Nation'' in which ``people of faith continue to wage a determined campaign to meet needs and fight suffering'', as expressed by the 43rd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2003; Whereas, ``[f]rom its birth to this day, the United States has prized this legacy of religious freedom and honored this heritage by standing for religious freedom and offering refuge to those suffering religious persecution'', as noted in section 2(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)); Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote-- (1) in 1798 that each right encompassed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is dependent on the other rights described in that Amendment, ``thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others''; and (2) in 1822 that the constitutional freedom of religion is ``the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights''; Whereas religious freedom ``has been integral to the preservation and development of the United States'', and ``the free exercise of religion goes hand in hand with the preservation of our other rights'', as expressed by the 41st President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1993; and Whereas we ``continue to proclaim the fundamental right of all peoples to believe and worship according to their own conscience, to affirm their beliefs openly and freely, and to practice their faith without fear or intimidation'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1998: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) on Religious Freedom Day on January 16, 2021, honors the 235th anniversary of the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom; and (2) affirms that-- (A) for individuals of any faith and individuals of no faith, religious freedom includes the right of an individual to live, work, associate, and worship in accordance with the beliefs of the individual; (B) all people of the United States can be unified in supporting religious freedom, regardless of differing individual beliefs, because religious freedom is a fundamental human right; and (C) ``the American people will remain forever unshackled in matters of faith'', as expressed by the 44th President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2012. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS204-2 | null | 2,250 |
formal | religious liberties | null | homophobic | Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Hawley, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Rounds) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Con. Res. 4 Whereas the democracy of the United States is rooted in the fundamental truth that all people are created equal, endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Whereas the freedom of conscience was highly valued by-- (1) individuals seeking religious freedom who settled in the colonies in the United States; (2) the founders of the United States; and (3) Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, dated February 4, 1809, that ``[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprizes of the civil authority''; Whereas the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was-- (1) drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who considered the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to be one of his greatest achievements; (2) enacted on January 16, 1786; and (3) the forerunner to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Whereas section 2(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)) states that-- (1) ``[t]he right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States''; and (2) religious freedom was established by the founders of the United States ``in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation''; Whereas the role of religion in society and public life in the United States has a long and robust tradition; Whereas individuals who have studied the democracy of the United States from an international perspective, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, have noted that religion plays a central role in preserving the Government of the United States because religion provides the moral base required for democracy to succeed; Whereas, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that ``people of many faiths may be united in a community of tolerance and devotion''; Whereas the principle of religious freedom ``has guided our Nation forward'', as expressed by the 44th President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2011, and freedom of religion ``is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe'', as expressed by that President of the United States on Religious Freedom Day in 2013; Whereas ``[f]reedom of religion is a fundamental human right that must be upheld by every nation and guaranteed by every government'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1999; Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects-- (1) the right of individuals to freely express and act on the religious beliefs of those individuals; and (2) individuals from coercion to profess or act on a religious belief to which those individuals do not adhere; Whereas ``our laws and institutions should not impede or hinder but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in remarks accompanying the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.); Whereas, for countless people of the United States, faith is an integral part of every aspect of daily life and is not limited to the homes, houses of worship, or doctrinal creeds of those individuals; Whereas ``religious faith has inspired many of our fellow citizens to help build a better Nation'' in which ``people of faith continue to wage a determined campaign to meet needs and fight suffering'', as expressed by the 43rd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2003; Whereas, ``[f]rom its birth to this day, the United States has prized this legacy of religious freedom and honored this heritage by standing for religious freedom and offering refuge to those suffering religious persecution'', as noted in section 2(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)); Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote-- (1) in 1798 that each right encompassed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is dependent on the other rights described in that Amendment, ``thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others''; and (2) in 1822 that the constitutional freedom of religion is ``the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights''; Whereas religious freedom ``has been integral to the preservation and development of the United States'', and ``the free exercise of religion goes hand in hand with the preservation of our other rights'', as expressed by the 41st President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1993; and Whereas we ``continue to proclaim the fundamental right of all peoples to believe and worship according to their own conscience, to affirm their beliefs openly and freely, and to practice their faith without fear or intimidation'', as expressed by the 42nd President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 1998: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) on Religious Freedom Day on January 16, 2021, honors the 235th anniversary of the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom; and (2) affirms that-- (A) for individuals of any faith and individuals of no faith, religious freedom includes the right of an individual to live, work, associate, and worship in accordance with the beliefs of the individual; (B) all people of the United States can be unified in supporting religious freedom, regardless of differing individual beliefs, because religious freedom is a fundamental human right; and (C) ``the American people will remain forever unshackled in matters of faith'', as expressed by the 44th President of the United States in a Presidential proclamation on Religious Freedom Day in 2012. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS204-2 | null | 2,251 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | SENATE RESOLUTION 23--HONORING THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF HENRY LOUIS AARON Mr. WARNOCK (for himself, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Tuberville) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 23 Whereas Henry Louis ``Hank'' Aaron was born 1 of 8 children on February 5, 1934, to Herbert Aaron Sr. and Estella (Pritchett) Aaron in Mobile, Alabama; Whereas Mr. Aaron grew up during the height of Jim Crow and segregation and faced racism and discrimination from a young age, including from the stands while playing in the South as a minor league baseball player early in his baseball career; Whereas Mr. Aaron began his baseball career as a teenager in the Negro leagues, first playing for the Prichard Athletics, then the Mobile Black Bears, before being signed by the Indianapolis Clowns of the Negro American League; Whereas, in 1952, Mr. Aaron was signed by the Boston Braves, who assigned him to play in the minor league for their Northern League farm team, the Eau Claire Bears, where he made the Northern League's All-Star team and was unanimously named Rookie of the Year; Whereas, in 1953, Mr. Aaron was promoted to play for the South Atlantic League affiliate of the Braves, the Jacksonville Braves, as one of the league's first Black players, where he immediately helped the team win the league championship and won the South Atlantic League's Most Valuable Player Award; Whereas, in 1954, Mr. Aaron was invited to attend spring training with the Milwaukee Braves and signed his first Major League Baseball contract on the final day of Braves spring training, making his Major League Baseball debut against the Cincinnati Reds and hitting his first Major League Baseball home run on April 23, 1954; Whereas Mr. Aaron won his first batting title in 1956 and was voted the National League's Most Valuable Player in 1957, helping the Braves win their first pennant in Milwaukee and leading the Braves to a 1957 World Series victory against the New York Yankees; Whereas, in 1966, Mr. Aaron moved with the Braves to Atlanta, Georgia and went on to play 23 seasons in Major League Baseball, all but his final 2 seasons with the Braves in Milwaukee and then Atlanta; Whereas, on April 4, 1974, Mr. Aaron tied Babe Ruth's home run record by hitting home run number 714 in a game against the Cincinnati Reds on his first swing of the season; Whereas, on the evening of April 8, 1974, Mr. Aaron made history by breaking Babe Ruth's record when he hit home run number 715 against the Los Angeles Dodgers at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia, cementing his place in history as the Nation's home run king; Whereas, during the historic moment, veteran baseball broadcaster Vin Scully announced, ``What a marvelous moment for baseball. What a marvelous moment for Atlanta and the State of Georgia. What a marvelous moment for the country and the world. A Black man is getting a standing ovation in the Deep South for breaking a record of an all-time baseball idol.''; Whereas Mr. Aaron went on to hit 755 home runs in his career, a home run record that went unbroken for more than 30 years, with his final home run coming on July 20, 1976; Whereas, at the time of his passing, Mr. Aaron held the Major League Baseball records for the most career runs batted in (2,297), extra base hits (1,477), and total bases (6,856); Whereas, at the time of his passing, Mr. Aaron was 1 of only 4 players to have at least 17 seasons with 150 or more hits, was in second place for most in home runs and at-bats (12,364), and was in third place for most games played (3,298) and hits (3,771); Whereas, in addition to his records, Mr. Aaron achieved numerous career highlights and awards, including-- (1) becoming the ninth player to achieve the 3,000 hit milestone and the first player to achieve both 500 home runs and 3,000 hits; (2) being a 2-time National League batting champion; (3) winning the National League's single-season home run title 4 times; (4) achieving a career batting average of .305; (5) being voted an All-Star in all but his first and last seasons; and (6) winning 3 Gold Glove awards for his play as a right fielder; Whereas Mr. Aaron achieved these milestones while bravely facing racism at every stage of his historic career, including being barred from hotels where his minor league white teammates stayed, receiving many racist letters and threats, and even needing protection from law enforcement at games to protect against racist violence or harassment; Whereas during his career Mr. Aaron became a national symbol for perseverance by demonstrating athletic greatness and strength while enduring vicious racism and hate, helping advance the cause for civil rights and becoming a civic leader in the Black community. Whereas Mr. Aaron became the first Black American to hold a senior management position in Major League Baseball as a front office executive with the Atlanta Braves, supported the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (``NAACP''), and founded the Chasing the Dream Foundation to support underprivileged youth through mentorship and financial support; Whereas, in April 1977, the Atlanta Braves retired Mr. Aaron's Number 44, erected a statue in his honor in 1982, and named the address of their second home, Turner Field, as 755 Hank Aaron Drive; Whereas Mr. Aaron is an integral part of Mobile, Alabama history and has been recognized by the city through the construction of a stadium, opening of a museum, and naming of a park, in his honor; Whereas, in 1982, his first year of eligibility, Mr. Aaron was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, receiving 97.8 percent of the vote, the second-highest tally at the time only to Ty Cobb; Whereas, on the 25th anniversary of Mr. Aaron's 715th home run, Major League Baseball created the Hank Aaron Award, given annually to the players with the best overall offensive performances in each league; Whereas, in 2002, Mr. Aaron received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, from President George W. Bush, with the citation noting that Mr. Aaron ``embodies the true spirit of our Nation''; and Whereas at the time of his passing, Mr. Aaron was long renowned for having uplifted the Black community and improved human relations over his career through his tremendous display of dignity and long record of achievement in the face of racism and hate, cementing his legacy as a leading figure for civil rights: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) honors the life and legacy of Henry Louis Aaron for his accomplishments on and off the baseball field, and for defying racism and breaking down racial barriers in the fight for equality as one of the last Major League Baseball All- Stars to have played in the Negro leagues; (2) proclaims that Henry Louis Aaron indeed embodied the true spirit and promise of our Nation, reflected the best of the determination and perseverance of the people of the United States, and exemplified the indomitable will of Black Americans to overcome impossible odds to achieve greatness in the face of relentless adversity and racism; and (3) recognizes the life and legacy of Henry Louis Aaron as an important figure in the fight for civil rights, as well as one of the greatest and most prolific baseball players and professional athletes of the United States, of all time. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-01-28-pt1-PgS204 | null | 2,252 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as you know, as you walk around the Capitol these last couple of weeks, you have to notice the changes. Quiet views of the Capitol, the seat of our government, are obstructed by fences topped with barbed wire and servicemembers on patrol at every corner, every entrance, and every gateway. These servicemembers, men and women of our National Guard, are our neighbors. They are our coworkers. They are members of our family. They are called away from home, many of which volunteered to come here to the Nation's Capitol to protect the very heart of democracy. They deserve our thanks. They deserve our gratitude. They deserve our unwavering support. With over 25,000 members of the Guard from every State, territory, and District of Columbia present in Washington to protect our time-honored traditions, there is no greater representation of the best of America here as we carry out the people's business. I am grateful to them for their service. Now, 2 weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting and thanking some members of Vermont's own National Guard--Lieutenant Colonel Day, along with Captain Lahr, and First Sergeant Stewart from Bravo Troop of Vermont's renowned Mountain Calvary Battalion. They welcomed me and introduced me to a contingent of the Vermonters present. Now, through their deployment, they are asked to face challenges at a moment's notice. They use the training and the teamwork that has always helped them succeed in Vermont and overseas. They met those challenges, and they exceeded those challenges. Like all National Guard units when they deploy, these Vermonters came to the District with deep ties back to our communities and the families and employers that make their service possible. I am privileged to be the cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus. I have heard, time and again, firsthand testimony from members of the Guard that that hometown connection is the glue that makes what they do possible. We are grateful to their families, their communities, and their employers too. But that can be said about every Senator here, including our distinguished Presiding Officer. The Vermont Guard members I talked to carried with them the support of Vermont communities, especially from Southern Vermont, where Bravo Troop's armory is located. To give you an idea of how they are part of the community, the deployment was led by the vice principal of Brattleboro Union High School. It included the cousin of one of my staffers. It was filled with soldiers with connections and stories that make up the culture and community I proudly call home--Vermont. A similar story could be told about the communities represented in the units from every State and territory. I am especially grateful because most of the soldiers from Vermont are going to deploy overseas later this year. Everyone that came down this January volunteered to be here. So much has been asked of the National Guard these last 3 months, from the COVID-19 response to several disturbances this summer, to safeguarding the Nation's Capitol--all of it on top of regular training and deployment schedules. To the men and women of the National Guard from every State and territory and the District of Columbia, we appreciate the immense contributions you have made to our country today and every day. You are real patriots. You are real heroes, and democracy thanks you. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2021-02-01-pt1-PgS207-4 | null | 2,253 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Coronavirus Madam President, at the same time, the Senate this week will begin the important work of crafting legislation to rescue the American people and the American economy from the continued effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We continue to face a crisis unlike any other in our lifetimes. Over the course of a year, more than 26 million Americans contracted the virus and nearly 450,000 have died--more than the number of Americans who died during World War II. Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs, thousands of businesses closed their doors for good, and the economy has suffered the worst year of growth, again, since World War II. Our efforts here in Congress over the past year have saved scores of smallbusinesses and kept millions of Americans in their home and out of poverty, but our work is far from completed. As we speak, nearly a million Americans are filing for unemployment per week. More than 16 million Americans have reported being thousands of dollars behind on the rent, on mortgage, on utilities. Elderly Americans are having their heat shut off in the depths of winter. Families are having the power and internet shut off during their children's first year of virtual kindergarten. Small businesses we have done so much to help through the PPP and other bipartisan programs will struggle until we can vaccinate enough Americans to get the country back to normal. Facing these multifaceted challenges of a scale and scope larger than any event in the past hundred years, Congress must pursue a bold and robust course of action. It makes no sense to pinch pennies when so many Americans are struggling. The risk of doing too little is far greater than the risk of doing too much. Our history is full of warnings about the costs of small thinking during times of great challenge. President Hoover failed to react quickly enough to forestall a Great Depression. In the wake of our most recent financial crisis in 2009, Congress was too timid and constrained, and the ensuing recovery was long, slow, and painful. Treasury Secretary Yellen, who watched the most recent recovery up close, just told us that ``the smartest thing we can do is act big.'' Let me repeat that. ``The smartest thing we can do is act big,'' according to Treasury Secretary Yellen. So that is what the Senate is going to do--act big. Today, Speaker Pelosi and I will file a joint budget resolution for fiscal year 2021 totaling $1.9 trillion, which is the first step in giving Congress an additional legislative tool to quickly pass the COVID relief legislation. The resolution, if passed by both Chambers of Congress, will provide instructions for the House and Senate committees to begin work on a potential budget reconciliation bill, which will be the vehicle for urgent and necessary COVID relief. Now, I want to be very clear. There is nothing in this process that will preclude it from being bipartisan. We welcome--welcome--Republican input. Let me say that again. There is nothing in this process--the budget resolution or reconciliation--that precludes our work from being bipartisan. In fact, the Senate has used this process no fewer than 17 times to pass bipartisan legislation since 1980, including to create or expand landmark programs like children's health insurance, the child tax credit, and the earned income tax credit, which together have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty. COVID relief, too, should be the work of both Democrats and Republicans. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off in red States and blue States. American families are struggling with the rent and utilities in Kentucky as well as in New York. We should all be eager to provide our country the resources it needs to finally beat this disease and return our country to normal. To that end, Democrats welcome the ideas and input of our Senate Republican colleagues. The only thing we cannot accept is a package that is too small or too narrow to pull our country out of this emergency. We cannot repeat the mistake of 2009, and we must act very soon to get this assistance to those so desperately in need. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-01-pt1-PgS210-5 | null | 2,254 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. MORELLE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 85. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 11) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2021 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2022 through 2030; and for other purposes (Rept. 117- 3). Referred to the House Calendar. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgH275-4 | null | 2,255 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. MORELLE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 85. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 11) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2021 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2022 through 2030; and for other purposes (Rept. 117- 3). Referred to the House Calendar. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgH275-4 | null | 2,256 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on another matter entirely, the Senate, this week, will continue confirming President Biden's Cabinet nominees, closing the book today on the nomination of Alexander Mayorkas to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. Mr. Mayorkas's qualifications are unassailable. He is a 7-year veteran of the DHS and has already been confirmed by this Chamber three--three--times. Like most of President Biden's Cabinet nominees, his nomination is also history-making: He will be the first Latino and first immigrant to hold the top job at DHS. I look forward to confirming Mr. Mayorkas today. We have a second outstanding nominee to confirm today as well--Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Buttigieg--known to many simply as Mayor Pete--has demonstrated an impressive familiarity with the entire Nation's transportation challenges--challenges that are pronounced in States like my own, where projects like the Gateway Tunnel are a top national priority. I know that Mr. Buttigieg is committed to working with Members from both sides to improve rail and transit, highways, and more in rural communities, urban centers, and everywhere in between. I am excited to call him Secretary Pete by the end of the day and get to work with him immediately on helping the MTA--the Nation's largest transit network in the country--and moving Gateway forward after years of cynical obstruction by the Trump administration. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS215-6 | null | 2,257 |
formal | Hollywood | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on Alejandro Mayorkas, President Biden's nominee to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Up to this point, I have voted in favor of the President's mainstream nominees to key posts. I will have my differences with Secretaries Austin, Yellen, and Blinken on policy, but they were mainstream choices from the President. Mr. Mayorkas is something else. He does not deserve Senate confirmation to lead Homeland Security. Frankly, his record should foreclose confirmation even to a lower post. The problem isn't experience--not exactly. Mr. Mayorkas is all too familiar with the levers of power that control U.S. immigration law. The problem is when he is chosen to pull those levers--and for whose benefit. As a high-ranking official in the Obama administration, Mr. Mayorkas did his best to turn U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services into an unethical favor factory for Democratic Party royalty. Governors, a DNC chair, Hollywood executives, a Senate majority leader from Nevada--they all received special treatment to a degree that stunned and disturbed the Obama administration's own inspector general over at that Department. His independent report blasted the ``appearance of favoritism and special access.'' We are talking about shoving through green cards as political favors and intervening to overturn denials. The IG confirmed this wasn't just about speed; Mr. Mayorkas's improper influence actually changed outcomes. This wasn't the first time this nominee abused an office for political purposes. Before his tenure at DHS, while U.S. attorney, the nominee had helped his fellow California Democrats get a well-connected L.A. drug kingpin onto President Clinton's infamous eleventh-hour pardons list. The drug dealer's father was a Democratic Party donor. Mysteriously, several notable California Democrats took an extremely keen interest in the case. Both Mr. Mayorkas and yet another one of President Biden's nominees, Mr. Becerra, came under scrutiny for their personal roles in the special treatment that was dished out to this donor's son. When questioned about these actions, Mr. Mayorkas responded with false and conflicting statements, including while under oath. Reviews of USCIS under Mr. Mayorkas found intimidation and retaliation against employees when they were too focused on rooting out fraud instead of merely rubberstamping applications. According to some of his own employees, his leadership led to ``a culture of fear and disrespect.'' Does this sound like somebody who deserves a promotion? Employees reported Mr. Mayorkas viewed the people applying to live here as the Agency's ``customers,'' whom it was their job to please and satisfy. They said the crucial goal that defined his approach was not enforcing American laws, protecting American jobs, or defending the American homeland, but rather ensuring there were ``zero complaints'' from the customers. I will close with one observation. Last week, I heard the Democratic leader compare the confirmation timelines for Mr. Mayorkas versus Gen. John Kelly--an ethically compromised partisan lawyer versus a retired four-star general whom the Senate confirmed 88 to 11. The contrast could not be sharper. For one thing, I would say Secretary Kelly understood that our customers, first and foremost, are always the American people. It is, frankly, remarkable that someone with his record is even up for a Cabinet appointment. I will be voting against this confirmation and urge our colleagues to do the same. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS216-2 | null | 2,258 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Nomination of Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas Mr. President, while on the subject of confirmation, the Senate has confirmed Mr. Alejandro Mayorkas three different times. When you listen to the Republican Senate leader this morning, you may not catch that fact. He was second in command of the Agency he is nominated by President Biden to lead. Most recently, he served as the DHS Deputy Secretary, the Agency's second in command, and the Chief Operating Officer, handling counterterrorism, cybersecurity, border security, emergency management, and other critical matters. We need Mr. Mayorkas's deep expertise and experience in place at the DHS starting as quickly as possible, maybe even today. Perhaps Republicans have forgotten about the last 4 years of chaos at the Department of Homeland Security. Here is a reminder: Under President Trump's administration, the DHS experienced an unprecedented leadership vacuum. The DHS lurched from one Secretary or Acting Secretary to the next--six in total--only two of whom were actually confirmed by the Senate. Those are more Agency heads in the last 4 years than in the 13-year history of the Department of Homeland Security before the Trump administration. For over a year, the Agency was led byunlawfully appointed Acting Secretary Chad Wolf. Nine days before President Trump left office, Mr. Wolf resigned and was replaced by yet another Acting Secretary. Four former Secretaries of Homeland Security--two Republicans and two Democrats--every person ever to serve as a Senate-confirmed DHS Secretary prior to the Trump administration, recently endorsed Ali Mayorkas. They said he is ``a man of character, integrity, experience and compassion'' and ``a proven leader to right the ship.'' You would hardly believe that if you listened to some of the things said about him this morning on the floor. In their endorsement of Mr. Mayorkas, every former Secretary of Homeland Security before the Trump administration went on to note: The leadership vacuum and turmoil at the Department of Homeland Security may have contributed to the failure to anticipate and adequately prepare for the terrorist attack of January 6 on the Capitol. That is the reality. After 4 years of disorder and disarray at the DHS, the security of America, including this very Capitol Building, suffered because of the lack of leadership under the previous administration. Mr. Mayorkas is the son of a Holocaust survivor and an immigrant from Cuba. Mr. Mayorkas knows firsthand that America can be a beacon of hope to the world and the promise to those who are facing persecution of a place of safe haven. Mr. Mayorkas is an experienced national security leader who can restore integrity and decency to the Department of Homeland Security. I, personally, appreciated the skill and dedication Mr. Mayorkas showed as the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It was in that post of 2012 that he implemented DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which has allowed more than 800,000 young people to contribute to America's future. I won't recount the entire history, but my trek on this particular issue began 20 years ago, when I introduced the DREAM Act. Thanks to my friend, former colleague, and leader of our country, Barack Obama, by Executive order, he created DACA and gave these young people their chance to prove themselves. As Deputy Secretary, Mr. Mayorkas oversaw a $60 billion budget and led a workforce of nearly 230,000 individuals. He excelled in that role. He received the Department's Distinguished Service Award, its highest civilian honor; the U.S. Coast Guard's Distinguished Service award; and special commendation from the National Security Agency for his achievements in national security and cybersecurity. Among his numerous responsibilities, Mr. Mayorkas led the Department's response to the Ebola and Zika outbreaks--relevant and timely experience that he will bring to the DHS during this COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier in his career, Mr. Mayorkas served as the Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney in California. The national president of the Fraternal Order of Police enthusiastically endorsed Mr. Mayorkas: ``His professionalism, integrity and commitment to just and fair enforcement of the law makes him an ideal candidate to lead the department. Mr. Mayorkas has pursued criminal wrongdoers and has protected the rights of the innocent with indefatigable vigor. His work reflects all that is right in government.'' Mr. Mayorkas is an outstanding nominee to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. His experience, qualifications, deep expertise, and integrity will serve our Nation well in this important and challenging position. Steady leadership at the Department of Homeland Security is sorely needed today. I urge my colleagues to expeditiously confirm Mr. Mayorkas so that he can serve as the next Secretary of Homeland Security. Today, we will get a chance to vote on Mr. Mayorkas. I sincerely hope that the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will allow us to set the stage for a hearing as quickly as possible for our next Attorney General, Merrick Garland. So much is at stake. The national security of the United States should be a higher priority than any partisan consideration. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS218 | null | 2,259 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DAINES. Madam President, today I have the honor of recognizing my good friend Chuck Roady of Flathead County. It is hard to imagine where the Montana timber industry would be right now were it not for the leadership of Chuck. The last few decades haven't been easy on the timber industry or the communities that rely upon it for good paying jobs. Yet, throughout his career, Chuck has met these challenges head-on, fighting tooth and nail to protect timber jobs and advocate for the proper management of our forests. Growing up, Chuck loved the outdoors and wanted to find a job that would allow him to be in the woods. After graduating from the University of Idaho College of Forestry, he worked for various timber companies across the Pacific Northwest. In 2003, he became lands and resources manager for F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company in Columbia Falls, MT. The Stoltze Mill employs more than 130 hard-working Montanans. From the beginning of his time with Stoltze, Chuck became a leading voice in the community for our timber industry and proper forest management. Chuck's approach is to build bridges and find common ground amongst groups with different interests. His work has brought people together to find solutions that benefit the mills, the communities that depend on them, and our forests. Chuck has been a leader on timber issues on the national stage as well. He was a founding member of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition and served as its chair. In this role, he successfully worked to elevate forest management issues to the forefront of our national debates, making real progress along the way. He has given us all a reason to be optimistic about the future. I thank Chuck for his years of service to this cause and wish him all the best in his retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DAINES | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS244-2 | null | 2,260 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. DAINES. Madam President, today I have the honor of recognizing Mike, a Montana ranch dog who was crowned this year's runner up for Farm Dog of the Year. As a dog dad to Ruby, Reagan, and Jessie, I know the important role a dog plays in life. Dogs are there for us through the good and the bad, and they are always happy to see you. Our four-legged friends are a source of laughter and always make for a good hunting partner. In Montana, our dogs take on another role. They become a trusty ranch hand for many. Tim Feddes, a rancher from Manhattan, knows just how important it is to have a hard-working cow dog. That is exactly why he thought Mike, his border collie, should have a shot at American Farm Bureau's 2021 Farm Dog of the Year Contest. Out of hundreds of furry applicants, an expert panel chose Mike to be crowned as the runner-up for Farm Dog of the Year. Mike is a special dog that takes his job seriously and makes life on the ranch a little bit brighter. It is my honor to recognize Mike on this incredible accomplishment. He has represented ranch dogs everywhere, and especially in Montana, with pride. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DAINES | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS244-3 | null | 2,261 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Burr, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Young, Mr. Romney, Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Boozman) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to.: S. Res. 25 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in kindergarten through grade 12 (referred to in this preamble as ``K-12'') education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated educational inequities for many children in the United States, highlighting the importance of a high-quality education; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the 11th annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 24 through January 30, 2021: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 24 through January 30, 2021, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from kindergarten through grade 12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS253 | null | 2,262 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Burr, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Young, Mr. Romney, Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Boozman) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to.: S. Res. 25 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in kindergarten through grade 12 (referred to in this preamble as ``K-12'') education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated educational inequities for many children in the United States, highlighting the importance of a high-quality education; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the 11th annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 24 through January 30, 2021: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 24 through January 30, 2021, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from kindergarten through grade 12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS253 | null | 2,263 |
formal | educational choice | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Burr, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Young, Mr. Romney, Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Boozman) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to.: S. Res. 25 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in kindergarten through grade 12 (referred to in this preamble as ``K-12'') education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated educational inequities for many children in the United States, highlighting the importance of a high-quality education; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the 11th annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 24 through January 30, 2021: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 24 through January 30, 2021, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from kindergarten through grade 12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-02-pt1-PgS253 | null | 2,264 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Almighty God, whose way is in the sea and whose paths are in the great waters, we lift up our prayers in memory of four men who faced the violent storm that overcame the USAT Dorchester and her crew 78 years ago today. Remind us of the example of these four chaplains, who, though distinctly different in their faith traditions, in the face of mortal peril, united in a higher purpose and gave up their own chance for survival to save the lives of their shipmates. As we reflect on the actions they took, offering life jackets and last rites, sharing words of hope and dispelling fear, and as we honor today Officer Sicknick, in bravery in this very place, may we so dare to sacrifice everything in order to unify our efforts for the safety and well-being of our democracy and the welfare of its people. If we are inclined to doubt, steady our faith; if we are tempted, make us strong to resist; if we should miss the mark, give us courage to try again. Guide us with the light of Your truth. We pray trusting in the strength of Your name to answer our prayer. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-03-pt1-PgH283-3 | null | 2,265 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS FOR THE 117th CONGRESS House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, February 4, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules of the 117th Congress for the Committee on Foreign Affairs for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted these rules by a voice vote, with a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on Wednesday, February 3, 2021. Sincerely, Gregory W. Meeks, Chariman. (Adopted February 3, 2021) 1. General Provisions (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives, and in particular, the committee rules enumerated in clause 2 of rule XI, are the rules of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (hereafter referred to as the ``Committee''), to the extent applicable. (b) A motion to recess and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are privileged non-debatable motions in Committee. (c) The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs shall consult the Ranking Minority Member to the extent possible with respect to the business of the Committee. Each subcommittee of the Committee is a part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules, to the extent applicable. 2. Date of Meeting The regular meeting date of the Committee shall be the first Tuesday of every month when the House of Representatives is in session pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as the Chairman may deem necessary or at the request of a majority of the Members of the Committee in accordance with clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. The determination of the business to be considered at each meeting shall be made by the Chairman subject to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. A regularly scheduled meeting need not be held if, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no business to be considered. 3. Quorum For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two Members shall constitute a quorum, and the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall make every effort to ensure that the relevant Ranking Minority Member or another Minority Member is present at the time a hearing is convened. One-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action, except: (1) reporting a measure or recommendation; (2) closing Committee meetings and hearings to the public; (3) authorizing the issuance of subpoenas; and (4) any other action for which an actual majority quorum is required by any rule of the House of Representatives or by law. No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the full Committee by a subcommittee unless half of the subcommittee is actually present. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the Members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one Member. 4. Meetings and Hearings Open to the Public (a) Meetings: (1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, of the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public, because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise violate any labor rule of the House of Representatives. No person, other than Members of the Committee and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as the Committee or subcommittee may authorize, shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. This subsection does not apply to open Committee hearings which are provided for by subsection (b) of this rule. (2) The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment. The relevant Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. When exercising postponement authority, the relevant Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (b) Hearings: (1) Each hearing conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day should be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony-- (A) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or violate paragraph (2) of this subsection; or (B) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2) Whenever it is asserted by a Member of the Committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness-- (A) such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, if by a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony, the Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and (B) the Committee or subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the Committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. (3) No Member of the House of Representatives may be excluded from non-participatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee unless the House of Representatives has by majority vote authorized the Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings, on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members by the same procedures designated in this subsection for closing hearings to the public. (4) A Member of the House of Representatives who is not a Member of the Committee may not be recognized to participate in a Committee or Subcommittee hearing except by the unanimous consent of Committee Members present at such hearing. Participatory recognition of a non-Committee Member shall occur only after all Committee Members seeking recognition, both majority and minority, have had their opportunity to participate and question any witnesses. (5) The Committee or a subcommittee may by the procedure designated in this subsection vote to close one (1) subsequent day of hearing. (6) No congressional staff shall be present at any meeting or hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee that has been closed to the public, and at which classified information will be involved, unless such person is authorized access to such classified information in accordance with rule XX of the House of Representatives. 5. Convening Hearings and Markups (a) Hearings: (1) Notice. Public announcement shall be made of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee at the earliest possible date, and in any event at least one (1) week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, with the concurrence of the relevant Ranking Minority Member, determines that there is good cause to begin a hearing sooner, or if the Committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the Committee for the taking of action, the Chairman of the full Committee, if concurring, shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. No change shall be made to a publicly announced hearing title until after consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member and notice to previously announced witnesses. (2) Member Day Hearing. During the first session of each Congress, the full Committee shall hold a hearing at which it receives testimony from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. (b) Markups and Other Meetings to Transact Business: (1) Convening. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee may call or convene, as the relevant Chairman considers necessary, meetings of the Committee or subcommittee for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, or for the conduct of other Committee or subcommittee business. (2) Notice. Public announcement shall be made by the Chairman of the full Committee of the date, place, and subject matter of any markup or other meeting to conduct business at the earliest possible date, and in any event at least one (1) week before the commencement of such markup or meeting, unless the relevant Chairman determines, in consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member, that there is good cause to begin such a markup or meeting on an earlier date. If such determination is made, the Chairman of the full Committee, if concurring in that determination, shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (3) Agenda and Texts. The relevant Chairman shall provide to all Committee or subcommittee Members an agenda for each Committee and subcommittee markup or other meeting to transact business, setting out all items of business to be considered, including whenever possible a copy of any measure scheduled for markup, at least 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before the meeting. Bills on subjects not listed on such agenda shall be subject to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or subcommittee, or by the Chairman of the full Committee with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. The text of any measure to be marked up shall be made publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the markup meeting, or at the time of an announcement under subparagraph (b)(2) made within 24 hours before such meeting. (c) Publication. Public announcement of all hearings and markups shall be published in the Daily Digest portion of the Congressional Record and made publicly available in electronic form. Members shall be notified by the Staff Director of all meetings (including markups and hearings) and briefings of subcommittees and of the full Committee. (d) Member Seating. During Committee and subcommittee hearings and markups, chairs on the dais are for Members. No staff member other than a Committee or subcommittee staff director, counsel, or professional staff member may occupy a chair on the dais, unless authorized by the Chairman of the full Committee, after consultation with the Ranking Member of the Full Committee. Only one staff member each from the majority and the minority may occupy chairs on the dais at any time during a hearing or markup. 6. witnesses (a) Interrogation of Witnesses: (1) In so far as practicable, witnesses shall be permitted to present their oral statements without interruption subject to reasonable time constraints imposed by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, with questioning by the Committee Members taking place afterward. Members should refrain from questions until such statements are completed. (2) In recognizing Members, the relevant Chairman shall, to the extent practicable, give preference to the Members on the basis of their arrival at the hearing, taking into consideration the majority and minority ratio of the Members actually present. A Member desiring to speak or ask a question shall address the relevant Chairman and not the witness. (3) Subject to paragraph (4), each Member may interrogate the witness for 5 minutes, the reply of the witness being included in the 5-minute period. After all Members have had an opportunity to ask questions, the round shall begin again under the 5-minute rule. (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the relevant Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, may permit one (1) or more majority Members of the Committee designated by the relevant Chairman to question a witness for a specified period of not longer than 30 minutes. On such occasions, an equal number of minority Members of the Committee designated by the Ranking Minority Member shall be permitted to question the same witness for the same period of time. Committee staff may be permitted to question a witness for equal specified periods either with the concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee or by motion. However, in no case may questioning by Committee staff proceed before each Member of the Committee who wishes to speak under the 5-minute rule has had one opportunity to do so. (b) Testimony of Witnesses: (1) Advance Filing Requirement. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or a subcommittee is required to file testimony with the Committee or subcommittee at least two (2) business days in advance of that appearance. For purposes of this subsection, testimony includes the written statement of a witness, as well as any video, photographs, audio-visual matter, posters, or other supporting materials that the witness intends to present or display before the Committee. Such testimony should be provided in electronic form to the extent practicable. The Committee or subcommittee shall notify Members at least two business days in advance of a hearing of the availability of testimony submitted by witnesses. In addition, each witness shall provide sufficient copies, as determined by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, of his or her proposed written statement to be provided to Members and staff of the Committee or subcommittee, the news media, and the general public. The text of the written statement provided pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered final, and may not be revised by the witness after the Committee meeting at which the witness appears. (2) Witness Preclusion and Waiver. The requirements of paragraph (1) or any part thereof may be waived by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, or the presiding Member, or the Ranking Member of the Committee or subcommittee as it relates to witnesses who are called by the minority to testify, provided that the witness or the relevant Chairman or Ranking Minority Member has submitted, prior to the witness's appearance, a written explanation to the reasons testimony has not been made available to the Committee or subcommittee. If a witness who is not an official of the U.S. Government has not submitted testimony as required by paragraph (1) and no such written explanation has been submitted, the witness shall be released from testifying unless a majority of the Committee or subcommittee votes to accept his or her testimony. (3) Remote Witness Participation. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall promptly, and not later than 48 hours beforehand if possible, notify the relevant Ranking Member of any witness who is likely to present testimony other than in person, such as by videoconference. A witness may not testify via telephone or other audio-only medium without the concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee or subcommittee. The relevant Chairman shall make reasonable efforts to verify the identity of any witness participating remotely. (4) `Truth In Testimony' Disclosure. In the case of a witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed testimony shall, to the extent practicable, include: a curriculum vitae; a disclosure of the amount and source of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof), or of any contract, grant or payment originating with a foreign government, received during the past 36 months by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter of, and the witness' representational capacity at, the hearing; a disclosure of whether the witness is negotiating or awaiting approval to receive a contract with, a grant or payment from a foreign government; and a disclosure of whether the witness is fiduciary (including, but not limited to, a director, officer, advisor, or resident agent) of any organization or entity that has an interest in the subject matter of the hearing or an active registrant under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy, safety, or security of the witness, shall be made publicly available in electronic form 24 hours before the witness appears to the extent practicable, but not later than one day after the witness appears. (5) Witness Presentation. A witness shall limit his or her oral presentation to a brief summary of his or her written statement. (6) Translation. A witness requiring an interpreter or translator should include in the testimony provided pursuant to paragraph (1) the identity of the interpreter or translator that the witness intends to use. Unless properly noticed as a separate witness, an interpreter or translator appearing before the Committee should not present views or statements other than those expressed by the witness. (c) Oaths. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, or any Member of the Committee designated by the relevant Chairman, may administer oaths to any witness appearing before the Committee. 7. preparation and maintenance of committee records An accurate stenographic record shall be made of all hearings and markup sessions. Members of the Committee and any witness may examine the transcript of his or her own remarks and may make any grammatical or technical changes that do not substantively alter the record. Any such Member or witness shall return the transcript to the Committee offices within seven (7) calendar days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after receipt of the transcript, or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Any information supplied for the record at the request of a Member of the Committee shall be provided to the Member when received by the Committee. Transcripts of hearings and markup sessions (except for the record of a meeting or hearing which is closed to the public) shall be printed as soon as is practicable after receipt of the corrected versions, except that the Chairman may order the transcript of a hearing to be printed without the corrections of a Member or witness if the Chairman determines that such Member or witness has been afforded a reasonable time to correct such transcript and such transcript has not been returned within such time. The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with rule VII of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee. The Committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its publications available in electronic form, including official prints of hearings and markups sessions. 8. extraneous materials in committee hearings prints No extraneous material shall be printed in either the body or appendices of any Committee or subcommittee hearing, except matter which has been accepted for inclusion in the record during the hearing or by agreement of the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee within five (5) calendar days of the hearing. Copies of bills and other legislation under consideration and responses to written questions submitted by Members shall not be considered extraneous material. Extraneous material in either the body or appendices of any hearing to be printed which would be in excess of eight (8) printed pages (for any one submission) shall be accompanied by a written request to the relevant Chairman. Such written request shall contain an estimate in writing from the Public Printer of the probable cost of publishing such material. 9. information on committee action (a) Record Votes. The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee outside of executive session shall be made publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote. Such result shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the name of each Member voting for and against, and the Members present but not voting. (b) Amendments. Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any amendment, or 48 hours after the disposition or withdrawal of any other amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee, the text of each such amendment shall be made publicly available in electronic form. (c) Hearing and Markup Attendance. Member attendance at each Committee hearing and markup shall be recorded and included in the Committee print of the transcript of that hearing or markup. 10. Proxies Proxy voting is not permitted in the Committee or in subcommittees. 11. Reports (a) Reports on Bills and Resolutions. To the extent practicable, not later than 24 hours before a report is to be filed with the Clerk of the House on a measure that has been ordered reported by the Committee, the Chairman shall make available for inspection by all Members of the Committee a copy of the draft Committee report in order to afford Members adequate information and the opportunity to draft and file any supplemental, minority or additional views which they may deem appropriate. With respect to each record vote on a motion to report any measure or matter of a public character, and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, and the names of those Members voting for and against, shall be included in any Committee report on the measure or matter. (b) Prior Approval of Certain Reports. No Committee, subcommittee, or staff report, study, or other document which purports to express publicly the views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Committee or a subcommittee may be released to the public or filed with the Clerk of the House unless approved by a majority of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to Members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day). In any case in which clause 2(l) of rule XI and clause 3(a)(1) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives does not apply, each Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall be given an opportunity to have views or a disclaimer included as part of the material filed or released, as the case may be. (c) Foreign Travel Reports. At the same time that the report required by clause 8(b)(3) of rule X of the House of Representatives, regarding foreign travel reports, is submitted to the Chairman, Members and employees of the Committee shall provide a report to the Chairman listing all official meetings, interviews, inspection tours and other official functions in which the individual participated, by country and date. Under extraordinary circumstances, the Chairman may waive the listing in such report of an official meeting, interview, inspection tour, or other official function. The report shall be maintained in the Committee offices and shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours. Except in extraordinary circumstances, no Member or employee of the Committee will be authorized for additional Committee travel until the reports described in this subsection have been submitted to the Chairman for that person's prior Committee travel. 12. Reporting Bills and Resolutions Except in extraordinary circumstances, bills and resolutions will not be considered by the Committee unless and until the appropriate subcommittee has recommended the bill or resolution for Committee action, and will not be taken to the House of Representatives for action unless and until the Committee or a relevant subcommittee has ordered reported such bill or resolution, a quorum being present. Except in extraordinary circumstances, a bill or resolution originating in the House of Representatives that contains exclusively findings and policy declarations or expressions of the sense of the House of Representatives or the sense of the Congress shall not be considered by the Committee or a subcommittee unless such bill or resolution has at least 25 House co-sponsors, at least 10 of whom are Members of the Committee. For purposes of this rule, extraordinary circumstances will be determined by the Chairman, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member and such other Members of the Committee as the Chairman deems appropriate. The Committee or a subcommittee shall not consider a bill or resolution originating in the House of Representatives that expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates, celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates the anniversary of, an entity, event, group, individual, institution, team, or government program, or that acknowledges or recognizes a period of time for such purposes, except in circumstances determined by the Chairman with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. The Chairman is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate. 13. staff services (a) The Committee staff shall be selected and organized so that it can provide a comprehensive range of professional services in the field of foreign affairs to the Committee, the subcommittees, and all its Members. The staff shall include persons with training and experience in foreign affairs, making available to the Committee individuals with knowledge of major countries, areas, and U.S. overseas programs and operations. (b) Subject to clause 9 of rule X of the House of Representatives, the staff of the Committee, except as provided in paragraph (c), shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the majority of the Members in the majority party of the Committee. Their remuneration shall be fixed by the Chairman, and they shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chairman. Staff assignments are to be authorized by the Chairman or by the Staff Director under the direction of the Chairman. (c) Subject to clause 9 of rule X of the House of Representatives, the staff of the Committee assigned to the minority shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority Member with the approval of the majority of the minority party Members of the Committee. Their remuneration shall be fixed by the Ranking Minority Member, and they shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member. (d) The Chairman shall ensure that sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee. The Chairman shall ensure that the minority party is fairly treated in the appointment of such staff. 14. number and jurisdiction of subcommittees (a) Full Committee. The full Committee will be responsible for oversight and legislation relating to: foreign assistance (including development assistance, Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Millennium Challenge Account, HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, security assistance, and Public Law 480 programs abroad); management and operations of the State Department and other agencies of jurisdiction; national security developments affecting foreign policy; promotion of diversity and inclusion in the national security workforce; strategic planning and agreements; war powers, treaties, executive agreements, and the deployment and use of United States Armed Forces; peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and enforcement of United Nations or other international sanctions; arms control and disarmament issues; the International Development Finance Corporation, the United States Agency for International Development; activities and policies of the State, Commerce, and Defense Departments and other agencies related to the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign assistance Act, including export and licensing policy for munitions items and technology and dual-use equipment and technology; international law; interparliamentary engagement; promotion of democracy; international law enforcement issues, including narcotics control programs and activities; international cyber issues; Broadcasting Board of Governors; embassy security; international broadcasting; public diplomacy, including international communication and information policy, and international education and exchange programs; the Peace Corps, the American Red Cross; and all other matters not specifically assigned to a subcommittee. The full Committee will have jurisdiction over legislation with respect to the administration of the Export Administration Act, including the export and licensing of dual-use equipment and technology and other matters related to international economic policy and trade not otherwise assigned to a subcommittee, and with respect to the United Nations, its affiliated agencies, and other international organizations, including assessed and voluntary contributions to such organizations. The full Committee may conduct oversight and investigations with respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee as defined in the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) Subcommittees. There shall be six (6) standing subcommittees. The names and jurisdiction of those subcommittees shall be as follows: Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia and Nonproliferation Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy The subcommittees shall have jurisdiction over the following within their respective regions: (1) Matters affecting the political relations between the United States and other countries and regions, including resolutions or other legislative measures directed to such relations. (2) Legislation and oversight regarding human rights practices in particular countries. (3) Legislation with respect to region- or country-specific loans or other financial relations outside the Foreign Assistance Act. (4) Legislation with respect to disaster assistance outside the Foreign Assistance Act, boundary issues, and international claims. (5) Oversight of regional lending institutions. (6) Oversight of matters related to the regional activities of the United Nations, of its affiliated agencies, and of other multilateral institutions. (7) Identification and development of options for meeting future challenges relating to U.S. interests in the region including terrorism and cyber issues. (8) Oversight of base rights and other facilities access agreements and regional security pacts. (9) Concurrent oversight jurisdiction with respect to matters assigned to the other subcommittees insofar as they may affect the region. (10) Oversight of foreign assistance activities affecting the region. (11) Such other matters as the Chairman of the full Committee may determine. The Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: international health issues, including transboundary infectious diseases, maternal health and child survival, and programs related to the global ability to address health issues; population issues. In addition, legislation and oversight pertaining to global human rights. The Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia and Nonproliferation: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: nonproliferation matters involving nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction. The Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, including European economic alliances and security interests in former Soviet Union states, oversight of: global energy trends; energy security, responses to energy crises and challenges; international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; development of renewable energy technologies; promotion of transparency and good governance in the global energy sector; universal access to uninterrupted and affordable energy; climate change; environmental conservation and wildlife protection; and international cyber policy. The Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact: Oversight of: international development policy; the United Nations and its affiliated agencies (excluding peacekeeping and enforcement of United Nations or other international sanctions); and matters relating to corporate social impact and responsibility, including the promotion of responsible and ethical social, environmental and business practices. The Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of multilateral counterterrorism efforts. The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: matters relating to international economic and trade policy; commerce with foreign countries; international investment policy; the International Development Finance Corporation and Trade and Development Agency; commodity agreements; and special oversight of international financial and monetary institutions; the Export-Import Bank, and customs; civilian security, including transnational organized crime and preventing violence by state or non-state actors; and migration and forced displacement. With the concurrence of the Chairman of the full Committee, legislative jurisdiction over measures related to export promotion and measures related to the International Development Finance Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency. 15. powers and duties of subcommittees (a) In General. Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it. (b) Scheduling. Subcommittee chairmen shall set meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman, other subcommittee chairmen, the relevant Ranking Minority Member and other appropriate Members, with a view toward minimizing scheduling conflicts. Subcommittee meetings shall not be scheduled to occur simultaneously with meetings of the full Committee. Hearings shall not be scheduled to occur prior to the first vote or subsequent to the last vote of a legislative week, or outside of Washington, D.C., without prior consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member. In order to ensure orderly administration and fair assignment of hearing and meeting rooms, the subject, time, and location of hearings and meetings shall be arranged in advance with the Chairman through the Staff Director of the Committee. (c) Vice Chairmen. The Chairman of the Full Committee shall designate a Member of the majority party on each subcommittee as its vice chairman. (d) Participation. The Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority Member may attend the meetings and participate in the activities of all subcommittees of which they are not Members, except that they may not vote or be counted for a quorum in such subcommittees. (e) Required Oversight Hearings. During each 180-day period following organization of the Committee, each subcommittee shall hold at least one hearing on oversight of U.S. Government Activities. 16. referral of bills by chairman In accordance with rule 14 of the Committee and to the extent practicable, all legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall be referred by the Chairman to a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks. In accordance with rule 14 of the Committee, legislation may also be referred to additional subcommittees for consideration. Unless otherwise directed by the Chairman, such subcommittees shall act on or be discharged from consideration of legislation that has been approved by the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks of such action. In referring any legislation to a subcommittee, the Chairman may specify a date by which the subcommittee shall report thereon to the full Committee. Subcommittees with regional jurisdiction shall have joint jurisdiction with the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights and the Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact over legislation regarding human rights practices in particular countries within their regions. The Chairman may designate a subcommittee Chairman or other Member to take responsibility as manager of a bill or resolution during its consideration in the House of Representatives. 17. party ratios on subcommittees and conference committees The majority party caucus of the Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of majority to minority party Members for each subcommittee. Party representation on each subcommittee or conference committee shall be no less favorable to the majority party than the ratio for the full Committee. The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member are authorized to negotiate matters affecting such ratios including the size of subcommittees and conference committees. 18. subcommittee funding and records Each subcommittee shall have adequate funds to discharge its responsibility for legislation and oversight. In order to facilitate Committee compliance with clause 2(e)(1) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, each subcommittee shall keep a complete record of all subcommittee actions which shall include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded. The result of each record vote shall be promptly made available to the full Committee for inspection by the public in accordance with rule 9 of the Committee. All subcommittee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept distinct from the congressional office records of the Member serving as Chairman of the subcommittee. Subcommittee records shall be coordinated with the records of the full Committee, shall be the property of the House, and all Members of the House shall have access thereto. 19. meetings of subcommittee chairmen The Chairman shall call a meeting of the subcommittee chairmen on a regular basis not less frequently than once a month. Such a meeting need not be held if there is no business to conduct. It shall be the practice at such meetings to review the current agenda and activities of each of the subcommittees. 20. access to classified information (a) Authorized Persons. In accordance with the stipulations of the Rules of the House of Representatives, all Members of the House who have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives shall be authorized to have access to classified information within the possession of the Committee. Members of the Committee staff shall be considered authorized to have access to classified information within the possession of the Committee when they have the proper security clearances, when they have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives, and when they have a demonstrable need to know. The decision on whether a given staff member has a need to know will be made on the following basis: (1) In the case of the full Committee majority staff, by the Chairman, acting through the Staff Director; (2) In the case of the full Committee minority staff, by the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, acting through the Minority Staff Director; (3) In the case of subcommittee majority staff, by the chairman of the subcommittee; (4) In the case of the subcommittee minority staff, by the Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee. No other individuals shall be considered authorized persons, unless so designated by the Chairman of the full Committee. (b) Designated Persons. Each Committee Member is permitted to designate one member of his or her staff as having the right of access to information classified Confidential. Such designated persons must have the proper security clearance, have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives, and have a need to know as determined by his or her principal. Upon request of a Committee Member in specific instances, a designated person also shall be permitted access to information classified Top Secret which has been furnished to the Committee pursuant to section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. Upon the written request of a Committee Member and with the approval of the Chairman in specific instances, a designated person may be permitted access to other classified materials. Designation of a staff person shall be by letter from the Committee Member to the Chairman. (c) Location. Classified information will be stored in secure safes in the Office of the Security Officer and in the Office of the Minority Staff Director. All materials classified Top Secret or higher must be stored in a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF). (d) Handling. Materials classified Confidential or Secret may be taken from Committee offices to other Committee offices and hearing rooms by Members of the Committee and authorized Committee staff in connection with hearings and briefings of the Committee or its subcommittees for which such information is deemed to be essential. Removal of such information from the Committee offices shall be only with the permission of the Chairman under procedures designed to ensure the safe handling and storage of such information at all times. Except as provided in this paragraph, Top Secret materials may not be taken from approved storage areas for any purpose, except that such materials may be taken to hearings and other meetings that are being conducted at the Top Secret level when necessary. Materials classified Top Secret may otherwise be used under conditions approved by the Chairman after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. (e) Notice. Appropriate notice of the receipt of classified documents received by the Committee from the Executive Branch will be sent promptly to Committee Members through the Survey of Activities or by other means. (f) Access. Except as provided for above, access to materials classified Top Secret or otherwise restricted held by the Committee will be in approved Committee spaces. The following procedures will be observed: (1) Authorized persons will be permitted access to classified documents after inquiring of the Staff Director or an assigned staff member. Access to the SCIF will be afforded during regular Committee hours. (2) Authorized persons will be required to identify themselves, to identify the documents or information they wish to view, and to sign the Classified Materials Log, which is kept with the classified information. (3) The assigned staff member will be responsible for maintaining a log which identifies: (1) authorized persons seeking access, (2) the classified information requested, and (3) the time of arrival and departure of such persons. The assigned staff member will also assure that the classified materials are returned to the proper location. (g) Divulgence. Classified information provided to the Committee by the Executive Branch shall be handled in accordance with the procedures that apply within the Executive Branch for the protection of such information. Any classified information to which access has been gained through the Committee may not be divulged to any unauthorized person. Classified material shall not be photocopied or otherwise reproduced. In no event shall classified information be discussed in a non-secure environment. Apparent violations of this rule should be reported as promptly as possible to the Chairman for appropriate action. (h) Other Regulations. The Chairman, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may establish such additional regulations and procedures as in his judgment may be necessary to safeguard classified information under the control of the Committee. Members of the Committee will be given notice of any such regulations and procedures promptly. They may be modified or waived in any or all particulars by a majority vote of the full Committee. 21. broadcasting of committee hearings and meetings All Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings which are open to the public may be covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any such methods of coverage in accordance with the provisions of clause 3 of House rule XI. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall determine, in his or her discretion, the number of television and still cameras permitted in a hearing or meeting room, but shall not limit the number of television or still cameras to fewer than two (2) representatives from each medium. Such coverage shall be in accordance with the following requirements contained in section 116(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and clause 4 of XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives: (a) If the television, Internet or radio coverage of the hearing or meeting is to be presented to the public as live coverage, that coverage shall be conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship. (b) No witness served with a subpoena by the Committee shall be required against his will to be photographed at any hearing or to give evidence or testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing, by radio or television is being conducted. At the request of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio, television, Internet or still photography coverage, all lenses shall be covered and all microphones used for coverage turned off. This subparagraph is supplementary to clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to the protection of the rights of witnesses. (c) The allocation among cameras permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee in a hearing room shall be in accordance with fair and equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (d) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving evidence or testimony and Member of the Committee or its subcommittees or the visibility of that witness and that Member to each other. (e) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions but shall not be placed in positions which obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media. (f) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and radio media shall not be installed in, or removed from, the hearing or meeting room while the Committee or subcommittee is in session. (g) Floodlights, spotlights, strobe lights, and flashguns shall not be used in providing any method of coverage of the hearing or meeting, except that the television media may install additional lighting in the hearing room, without cost to the Government, in order to raise the ambient lighting level in the hearing room to the lowest level necessary to provide adequate television coverage of the hearing or meeting at the current state-of-the art level of television coverage. (h) In the allocation of the number of still photographers permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee in a hearing or meeting room, preference shall be given to photographers from Associated Press Photos, United Press International News pictures, and Reuters. If requests are made by more of the media than will be permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee for coverage of the hearing or meeting by still photography, that coverage shall be made on the basis of a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of Press Photographers. (i) Photographers shall not position themselves, at any time during the course of the hearing or meeting, between the witness table and the Members of the Committee or its subcommittees. (j) Photographers shall not place themselves in positions which obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media. (k) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (l) Personnel providing coverage by still photography shall be currently accredited to the Press Photographers' Gallery Committee of Press Photographers. (m) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media and by still photography shall conduct themselves and their coverage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive manner. 22. subpoena powers A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member not less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such days) prior to the issuance of such subpoena. In addition, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or its subcommittees in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of the Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairman or by any Member designated by the Committee. 23. recommendation for appointment of conferees Whenever the Speaker is to appoint a conference committee, the Chairman shall recommend to the Speaker as conferees those Members of the Committee who are primarily responsible for the legislation (including to the full extent practicable the principal proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House), who have actively participated in the Committee or subcommittee consideration of the legislation, and who agree to attend the meetings of the conference. With regard to the appointment of minority Members, the Chairman shall consult with the Ranking Minority Member. 24. general oversight Not later than March 1 of the first session of a Congress, the Chairman shall prepare, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, an oversight plan for that Congress; provide a copy of that plan to each member of the Committee for at least seven calendar days before its submission; and submit the plan (including any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views submitted by a member of the Committee) simultaneously to the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on House Administration, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of rule X of the House of Representatives. In accordance with the provisions of clause 2(n) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, the Committee or a subcommittee thereof shall hold at least one hearing during each 120-day period following its establishment on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in programs within its jurisdiction, as documented in reports received from a Federal Office of the Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the United States that have been provided to the Ranking Minority Member prior to the notice of the hearing pursuant to Committee rule 5. 25. other procedures and regulations The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may establish such other procedures and take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing rules or to facilitate the effective operation of the Committee. Any additional procedures or regulations may be modified or rescinded in any or all particulars by a majority vote of the full Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-04-pt1-PgH376 | null | 2,266 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS FOR THE 117th CONGRESS House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, February 4, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules of the 117th Congress for the Committee on Foreign Affairs for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted these rules by a voice vote, with a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on Wednesday, February 3, 2021. Sincerely, Gregory W. Meeks, Chariman. (Adopted February 3, 2021) 1. General Provisions (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives, and in particular, the committee rules enumerated in clause 2 of rule XI, are the rules of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (hereafter referred to as the ``Committee''), to the extent applicable. (b) A motion to recess and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are privileged non-debatable motions in Committee. (c) The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs shall consult the Ranking Minority Member to the extent possible with respect to the business of the Committee. Each subcommittee of the Committee is a part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules, to the extent applicable. 2. Date of Meeting The regular meeting date of the Committee shall be the first Tuesday of every month when the House of Representatives is in session pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as the Chairman may deem necessary or at the request of a majority of the Members of the Committee in accordance with clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. The determination of the business to be considered at each meeting shall be made by the Chairman subject to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. A regularly scheduled meeting need not be held if, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no business to be considered. 3. Quorum For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two Members shall constitute a quorum, and the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall make every effort to ensure that the relevant Ranking Minority Member or another Minority Member is present at the time a hearing is convened. One-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action, except: (1) reporting a measure or recommendation; (2) closing Committee meetings and hearings to the public; (3) authorizing the issuance of subpoenas; and (4) any other action for which an actual majority quorum is required by any rule of the House of Representatives or by law. No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the full Committee by a subcommittee unless half of the subcommittee is actually present. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the Members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one Member. 4. Meetings and Hearings Open to the Public (a) Meetings: (1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, of the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public, because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise violate any labor rule of the House of Representatives. No person, other than Members of the Committee and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as the Committee or subcommittee may authorize, shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. This subsection does not apply to open Committee hearings which are provided for by subsection (b) of this rule. (2) The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment. The relevant Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. When exercising postponement authority, the relevant Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (b) Hearings: (1) Each hearing conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day should be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony-- (A) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or violate paragraph (2) of this subsection; or (B) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2) Whenever it is asserted by a Member of the Committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness-- (A) such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, if by a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony, the Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and (B) the Committee or subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the Committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. (3) No Member of the House of Representatives may be excluded from non-participatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee unless the House of Representatives has by majority vote authorized the Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings, on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members by the same procedures designated in this subsection for closing hearings to the public. (4) A Member of the House of Representatives who is not a Member of the Committee may not be recognized to participate in a Committee or Subcommittee hearing except by the unanimous consent of Committee Members present at such hearing. Participatory recognition of a non-Committee Member shall occur only after all Committee Members seeking recognition, both majority and minority, have had their opportunity to participate and question any witnesses. (5) The Committee or a subcommittee may by the procedure designated in this subsection vote to close one (1) subsequent day of hearing. (6) No congressional staff shall be present at any meeting or hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee that has been closed to the public, and at which classified information will be involved, unless such person is authorized access to such classified information in accordance with rule XX of the House of Representatives. 5. Convening Hearings and Markups (a) Hearings: (1) Notice. Public announcement shall be made of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee at the earliest possible date, and in any event at least one (1) week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, with the concurrence of the relevant Ranking Minority Member, determines that there is good cause to begin a hearing sooner, or if the Committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the Committee for the taking of action, the Chairman of the full Committee, if concurring, shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. No change shall be made to a publicly announced hearing title until after consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member and notice to previously announced witnesses. (2) Member Day Hearing. During the first session of each Congress, the full Committee shall hold a hearing at which it receives testimony from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. (b) Markups and Other Meetings to Transact Business: (1) Convening. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee may call or convene, as the relevant Chairman considers necessary, meetings of the Committee or subcommittee for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, or for the conduct of other Committee or subcommittee business. (2) Notice. Public announcement shall be made by the Chairman of the full Committee of the date, place, and subject matter of any markup or other meeting to conduct business at the earliest possible date, and in any event at least one (1) week before the commencement of such markup or meeting, unless the relevant Chairman determines, in consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member, that there is good cause to begin such a markup or meeting on an earlier date. If such determination is made, the Chairman of the full Committee, if concurring in that determination, shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (3) Agenda and Texts. The relevant Chairman shall provide to all Committee or subcommittee Members an agenda for each Committee and subcommittee markup or other meeting to transact business, setting out all items of business to be considered, including whenever possible a copy of any measure scheduled for markup, at least 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before the meeting. Bills on subjects not listed on such agenda shall be subject to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or subcommittee, or by the Chairman of the full Committee with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. The text of any measure to be marked up shall be made publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the markup meeting, or at the time of an announcement under subparagraph (b)(2) made within 24 hours before such meeting. (c) Publication. Public announcement of all hearings and markups shall be published in the Daily Digest portion of the Congressional Record and made publicly available in electronic form. Members shall be notified by the Staff Director of all meetings (including markups and hearings) and briefings of subcommittees and of the full Committee. (d) Member Seating. During Committee and subcommittee hearings and markups, chairs on the dais are for Members. No staff member other than a Committee or subcommittee staff director, counsel, or professional staff member may occupy a chair on the dais, unless authorized by the Chairman of the full Committee, after consultation with the Ranking Member of the Full Committee. Only one staff member each from the majority and the minority may occupy chairs on the dais at any time during a hearing or markup. 6. witnesses (a) Interrogation of Witnesses: (1) In so far as practicable, witnesses shall be permitted to present their oral statements without interruption subject to reasonable time constraints imposed by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, with questioning by the Committee Members taking place afterward. Members should refrain from questions until such statements are completed. (2) In recognizing Members, the relevant Chairman shall, to the extent practicable, give preference to the Members on the basis of their arrival at the hearing, taking into consideration the majority and minority ratio of the Members actually present. A Member desiring to speak or ask a question shall address the relevant Chairman and not the witness. (3) Subject to paragraph (4), each Member may interrogate the witness for 5 minutes, the reply of the witness being included in the 5-minute period. After all Members have had an opportunity to ask questions, the round shall begin again under the 5-minute rule. (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the relevant Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, may permit one (1) or more majority Members of the Committee designated by the relevant Chairman to question a witness for a specified period of not longer than 30 minutes. On such occasions, an equal number of minority Members of the Committee designated by the Ranking Minority Member shall be permitted to question the same witness for the same period of time. Committee staff may be permitted to question a witness for equal specified periods either with the concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee or by motion. However, in no case may questioning by Committee staff proceed before each Member of the Committee who wishes to speak under the 5-minute rule has had one opportunity to do so. (b) Testimony of Witnesses: (1) Advance Filing Requirement. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or a subcommittee is required to file testimony with the Committee or subcommittee at least two (2) business days in advance of that appearance. For purposes of this subsection, testimony includes the written statement of a witness, as well as any video, photographs, audio-visual matter, posters, or other supporting materials that the witness intends to present or display before the Committee. Such testimony should be provided in electronic form to the extent practicable. The Committee or subcommittee shall notify Members at least two business days in advance of a hearing of the availability of testimony submitted by witnesses. In addition, each witness shall provide sufficient copies, as determined by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, of his or her proposed written statement to be provided to Members and staff of the Committee or subcommittee, the news media, and the general public. The text of the written statement provided pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered final, and may not be revised by the witness after the Committee meeting at which the witness appears. (2) Witness Preclusion and Waiver. The requirements of paragraph (1) or any part thereof may be waived by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, or the presiding Member, or the Ranking Member of the Committee or subcommittee as it relates to witnesses who are called by the minority to testify, provided that the witness or the relevant Chairman or Ranking Minority Member has submitted, prior to the witness's appearance, a written explanation to the reasons testimony has not been made available to the Committee or subcommittee. If a witness who is not an official of the U.S. Government has not submitted testimony as required by paragraph (1) and no such written explanation has been submitted, the witness shall be released from testifying unless a majority of the Committee or subcommittee votes to accept his or her testimony. (3) Remote Witness Participation. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall promptly, and not later than 48 hours beforehand if possible, notify the relevant Ranking Member of any witness who is likely to present testimony other than in person, such as by videoconference. A witness may not testify via telephone or other audio-only medium without the concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee or subcommittee. The relevant Chairman shall make reasonable efforts to verify the identity of any witness participating remotely. (4) `Truth In Testimony' Disclosure. In the case of a witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed testimony shall, to the extent practicable, include: a curriculum vitae; a disclosure of the amount and source of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof), or of any contract, grant or payment originating with a foreign government, received during the past 36 months by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter of, and the witness' representational capacity at, the hearing; a disclosure of whether the witness is negotiating or awaiting approval to receive a contract with, a grant or payment from a foreign government; and a disclosure of whether the witness is fiduciary (including, but not limited to, a director, officer, advisor, or resident agent) of any organization or entity that has an interest in the subject matter of the hearing or an active registrant under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy, safety, or security of the witness, shall be made publicly available in electronic form 24 hours before the witness appears to the extent practicable, but not later than one day after the witness appears. (5) Witness Presentation. A witness shall limit his or her oral presentation to a brief summary of his or her written statement. (6) Translation. A witness requiring an interpreter or translator should include in the testimony provided pursuant to paragraph (1) the identity of the interpreter or translator that the witness intends to use. Unless properly noticed as a separate witness, an interpreter or translator appearing before the Committee should not present views or statements other than those expressed by the witness. (c) Oaths. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, or any Member of the Committee designated by the relevant Chairman, may administer oaths to any witness appearing before the Committee. 7. preparation and maintenance of committee records An accurate stenographic record shall be made of all hearings and markup sessions. Members of the Committee and any witness may examine the transcript of his or her own remarks and may make any grammatical or technical changes that do not substantively alter the record. Any such Member or witness shall return the transcript to the Committee offices within seven (7) calendar days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after receipt of the transcript, or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Any information supplied for the record at the request of a Member of the Committee shall be provided to the Member when received by the Committee. Transcripts of hearings and markup sessions (except for the record of a meeting or hearing which is closed to the public) shall be printed as soon as is practicable after receipt of the corrected versions, except that the Chairman may order the transcript of a hearing to be printed without the corrections of a Member or witness if the Chairman determines that such Member or witness has been afforded a reasonable time to correct such transcript and such transcript has not been returned within such time. The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with rule VII of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee. The Committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its publications available in electronic form, including official prints of hearings and markups sessions. 8. extraneous materials in committee hearings prints No extraneous material shall be printed in either the body or appendices of any Committee or subcommittee hearing, except matter which has been accepted for inclusion in the record during the hearing or by agreement of the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee within five (5) calendar days of the hearing. Copies of bills and other legislation under consideration and responses to written questions submitted by Members shall not be considered extraneous material. Extraneous material in either the body or appendices of any hearing to be printed which would be in excess of eight (8) printed pages (for any one submission) shall be accompanied by a written request to the relevant Chairman. Such written request shall contain an estimate in writing from the Public Printer of the probable cost of publishing such material. 9. information on committee action (a) Record Votes. The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee outside of executive session shall be made publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote. Such result shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the name of each Member voting for and against, and the Members present but not voting. (b) Amendments. Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any amendment, or 48 hours after the disposition or withdrawal of any other amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee, the text of each such amendment shall be made publicly available in electronic form. (c) Hearing and Markup Attendance. Member attendance at each Committee hearing and markup shall be recorded and included in the Committee print of the transcript of that hearing or markup. 10. Proxies Proxy voting is not permitted in the Committee or in subcommittees. 11. Reports (a) Reports on Bills and Resolutions. To the extent practicable, not later than 24 hours before a report is to be filed with the Clerk of the House on a measure that has been ordered reported by the Committee, the Chairman shall make available for inspection by all Members of the Committee a copy of the draft Committee report in order to afford Members adequate information and the opportunity to draft and file any supplemental, minority or additional views which they may deem appropriate. With respect to each record vote on a motion to report any measure or matter of a public character, and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, and the names of those Members voting for and against, shall be included in any Committee report on the measure or matter. (b) Prior Approval of Certain Reports. No Committee, subcommittee, or staff report, study, or other document which purports to express publicly the views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Committee or a subcommittee may be released to the public or filed with the Clerk of the House unless approved by a majority of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to Members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day). In any case in which clause 2(l) of rule XI and clause 3(a)(1) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives does not apply, each Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall be given an opportunity to have views or a disclaimer included as part of the material filed or released, as the case may be. (c) Foreign Travel Reports. At the same time that the report required by clause 8(b)(3) of rule X of the House of Representatives, regarding foreign travel reports, is submitted to the Chairman, Members and employees of the Committee shall provide a report to the Chairman listing all official meetings, interviews, inspection tours and other official functions in which the individual participated, by country and date. Under extraordinary circumstances, the Chairman may waive the listing in such report of an official meeting, interview, inspection tour, or other official function. The report shall be maintained in the Committee offices and shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours. Except in extraordinary circumstances, no Member or employee of the Committee will be authorized for additional Committee travel until the reports described in this subsection have been submitted to the Chairman for that person's prior Committee travel. 12. Reporting Bills and Resolutions Except in extraordinary circumstances, bills and resolutions will not be considered by the Committee unless and until the appropriate subcommittee has recommended the bill or resolution for Committee action, and will not be taken to the House of Representatives for action unless and until the Committee or a relevant subcommittee has ordered reported such bill or resolution, a quorum being present. Except in extraordinary circumstances, a bill or resolution originating in the House of Representatives that contains exclusively findings and policy declarations or expressions of the sense of the House of Representatives or the sense of the Congress shall not be considered by the Committee or a subcommittee unless such bill or resolution has at least 25 House co-sponsors, at least 10 of whom are Members of the Committee. For purposes of this rule, extraordinary circumstances will be determined by the Chairman, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member and such other Members of the Committee as the Chairman deems appropriate. The Committee or a subcommittee shall not consider a bill or resolution originating in the House of Representatives that expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates, celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates the anniversary of, an entity, event, group, individual, institution, team, or government program, or that acknowledges or recognizes a period of time for such purposes, except in circumstances determined by the Chairman with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. The Chairman is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate. 13. staff services (a) The Committee staff shall be selected and organized so that it can provide a comprehensive range of professional services in the field of foreign affairs to the Committee, the subcommittees, and all its Members. The staff shall include persons with training and experience in foreign affairs, making available to the Committee individuals with knowledge of major countries, areas, and U.S. overseas programs and operations. (b) Subject to clause 9 of rule X of the House of Representatives, the staff of the Committee, except as provided in paragraph (c), shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the majority of the Members in the majority party of the Committee. Their remuneration shall be fixed by the Chairman, and they shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chairman. Staff assignments are to be authorized by the Chairman or by the Staff Director under the direction of the Chairman. (c) Subject to clause 9 of rule X of the House of Representatives, the staff of the Committee assigned to the minority shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority Member with the approval of the majority of the minority party Members of the Committee. Their remuneration shall be fixed by the Ranking Minority Member, and they shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member. (d) The Chairman shall ensure that sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee. The Chairman shall ensure that the minority party is fairly treated in the appointment of such staff. 14. number and jurisdiction of subcommittees (a) Full Committee. The full Committee will be responsible for oversight and legislation relating to: foreign assistance (including development assistance, Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Millennium Challenge Account, HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, security assistance, and Public Law 480 programs abroad); management and operations of the State Department and other agencies of jurisdiction; national security developments affecting foreign policy; promotion of diversity and inclusion in the national security workforce; strategic planning and agreements; war powers, treaties, executive agreements, and the deployment and use of United States Armed Forces; peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and enforcement of United Nations or other international sanctions; arms control and disarmament issues; the International Development Finance Corporation, the United States Agency for International Development; activities and policies of the State, Commerce, and Defense Departments and other agencies related to the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign assistance Act, including export and licensing policy for munitions items and technology and dual-use equipment and technology; international law; interparliamentary engagement; promotion of democracy; international law enforcement issues, including narcotics control programs and activities; international cyber issues; Broadcasting Board of Governors; embassy security; international broadcasting; public diplomacy, including international communication and information policy, and international education and exchange programs; the Peace Corps, the American Red Cross; and all other matters not specifically assigned to a subcommittee. The full Committee will have jurisdiction over legislation with respect to the administration of the Export Administration Act, including the export and licensing of dual-use equipment and technology and other matters related to international economic policy and trade not otherwise assigned to a subcommittee, and with respect to the United Nations, its affiliated agencies, and other international organizations, including assessed and voluntary contributions to such organizations. The full Committee may conduct oversight and investigations with respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee as defined in the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) Subcommittees. There shall be six (6) standing subcommittees. The names and jurisdiction of those subcommittees shall be as follows: Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia and Nonproliferation Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy The subcommittees shall have jurisdiction over the following within their respective regions: (1) Matters affecting the political relations between the United States and other countries and regions, including resolutions or other legislative measures directed to such relations. (2) Legislation and oversight regarding human rights practices in particular countries. (3) Legislation with respect to region- or country-specific loans or other financial relations outside the Foreign Assistance Act. (4) Legislation with respect to disaster assistance outside the Foreign Assistance Act, boundary issues, and international claims. (5) Oversight of regional lending institutions. (6) Oversight of matters related to the regional activities of the United Nations, of its affiliated agencies, and of other multilateral institutions. (7) Identification and development of options for meeting future challenges relating to U.S. interests in the region including terrorism and cyber issues. (8) Oversight of base rights and other facilities access agreements and regional security pacts. (9) Concurrent oversight jurisdiction with respect to matters assigned to the other subcommittees insofar as they may affect the region. (10) Oversight of foreign assistance activities affecting the region. (11) Such other matters as the Chairman of the full Committee may determine. The Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: international health issues, including transboundary infectious diseases, maternal health and child survival, and programs related to the global ability to address health issues; population issues. In addition, legislation and oversight pertaining to global human rights. The Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia and Nonproliferation: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: nonproliferation matters involving nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction. The Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, including European economic alliances and security interests in former Soviet Union states, oversight of: global energy trends; energy security, responses to energy crises and challenges; international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; development of renewable energy technologies; promotion of transparency and good governance in the global energy sector; universal access to uninterrupted and affordable energy; climate change; environmental conservation and wildlife protection; and international cyber policy. The Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact: Oversight of: international development policy; the United Nations and its affiliated agencies (excluding peacekeeping and enforcement of United Nations or other international sanctions); and matters relating to corporate social impact and responsibility, including the promotion of responsible and ethical social, environmental and business practices. The Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of multilateral counterterrorism efforts. The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: matters relating to international economic and trade policy; commerce with foreign countries; international investment policy; the International Development Finance Corporation and Trade and Development Agency; commodity agreements; and special oversight of international financial and monetary institutions; the Export-Import Bank, and customs; civilian security, including transnational organized crime and preventing violence by state or non-state actors; and migration and forced displacement. With the concurrence of the Chairman of the full Committee, legislative jurisdiction over measures related to export promotion and measures related to the International Development Finance Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency. 15. powers and duties of subcommittees (a) In General. Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it. (b) Scheduling. Subcommittee chairmen shall set meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman, other subcommittee chairmen, the relevant Ranking Minority Member and other appropriate Members, with a view toward minimizing scheduling conflicts. Subcommittee meetings shall not be scheduled to occur simultaneously with meetings of the full Committee. Hearings shall not be scheduled to occur prior to the first vote or subsequent to the last vote of a legislative week, or outside of Washington, D.C., without prior consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member. In order to ensure orderly administration and fair assignment of hearing and meeting rooms, the subject, time, and location of hearings and meetings shall be arranged in advance with the Chairman through the Staff Director of the Committee. (c) Vice Chairmen. The Chairman of the Full Committee shall designate a Member of the majority party on each subcommittee as its vice chairman. (d) Participation. The Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority Member may attend the meetings and participate in the activities of all subcommittees of which they are not Members, except that they may not vote or be counted for a quorum in such subcommittees. (e) Required Oversight Hearings. During each 180-day period following organization of the Committee, each subcommittee shall hold at least one hearing on oversight of U.S. Government Activities. 16. referral of bills by chairman In accordance with rule 14 of the Committee and to the extent practicable, all legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall be referred by the Chairman to a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks. In accordance with rule 14 of the Committee, legislation may also be referred to additional subcommittees for consideration. Unless otherwise directed by the Chairman, such subcommittees shall act on or be discharged from consideration of legislation that has been approved by the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks of such action. In referring any legislation to a subcommittee, the Chairman may specify a date by which the subcommittee shall report thereon to the full Committee. Subcommittees with regional jurisdiction shall have joint jurisdiction with the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights and the Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact over legislation regarding human rights practices in particular countries within their regions. The Chairman may designate a subcommittee Chairman or other Member to take responsibility as manager of a bill or resolution during its consideration in the House of Representatives. 17. party ratios on subcommittees and conference committees The majority party caucus of the Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of majority to minority party Members for each subcommittee. Party representation on each subcommittee or conference committee shall be no less favorable to the majority party than the ratio for the full Committee. The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member are authorized to negotiate matters affecting such ratios including the size of subcommittees and conference committees. 18. subcommittee funding and records Each subcommittee shall have adequate funds to discharge its responsibility for legislation and oversight. In order to facilitate Committee compliance with clause 2(e)(1) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, each subcommittee shall keep a complete record of all subcommittee actions which shall include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded. The result of each record vote shall be promptly made available to the full Committee for inspection by the public in accordance with rule 9 of the Committee. All subcommittee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept distinct from the congressional office records of the Member serving as Chairman of the subcommittee. Subcommittee records shall be coordinated with the records of the full Committee, shall be the property of the House, and all Members of the House shall have access thereto. 19. meetings of subcommittee chairmen The Chairman shall call a meeting of the subcommittee chairmen on a regular basis not less frequently than once a month. Such a meeting need not be held if there is no business to conduct. It shall be the practice at such meetings to review the current agenda and activities of each of the subcommittees. 20. access to classified information (a) Authorized Persons. In accordance with the stipulations of the Rules of the House of Representatives, all Members of the House who have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives shall be authorized to have access to classified information within the possession of the Committee. Members of the Committee staff shall be considered authorized to have access to classified information within the possession of the Committee when they have the proper security clearances, when they have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives, and when they have a demonstrable need to know. The decision on whether a given staff member has a need to know will be made on the following basis: (1) In the case of the full Committee majority staff, by the Chairman, acting through the Staff Director; (2) In the case of the full Committee minority staff, by the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, acting through the Minority Staff Director; (3) In the case of subcommittee majority staff, by the chairman of the subcommittee; (4) In the case of the subcommittee minority staff, by the Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee. No other individuals shall be considered authorized persons, unless so designated by the Chairman of the full Committee. (b) Designated Persons. Each Committee Member is permitted to designate one member of his or her staff as having the right of access to information classified Confidential. Such designated persons must have the proper security clearance, have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives, and have a need to know as determined by his or her principal. Upon request of a Committee Member in specific instances, a designated person also shall be permitted access to information classified Top Secret which has been furnished to the Committee pursuant to section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. Upon the written request of a Committee Member and with the approval of the Chairman in specific instances, a designated person may be permitted access to other classified materials. Designation of a staff person shall be by letter from the Committee Member to the Chairman. (c) Location. Classified information will be stored in secure safes in the Office of the Security Officer and in the Office of the Minority Staff Director. All materials classified Top Secret or higher must be stored in a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF). (d) Handling. Materials classified Confidential or Secret may be taken from Committee offices to other Committee offices and hearing rooms by Members of the Committee and authorized Committee staff in connection with hearings and briefings of the Committee or its subcommittees for which such information is deemed to be essential. Removal of such information from the Committee offices shall be only with the permission of the Chairman under procedures designed to ensure the safe handling and storage of such information at all times. Except as provided in this paragraph, Top Secret materials may not be taken from approved storage areas for any purpose, except that such materials may be taken to hearings and other meetings that are being conducted at the Top Secret level when necessary. Materials classified Top Secret may otherwise be used under conditions approved by the Chairman after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. (e) Notice. Appropriate notice of the receipt of classified documents received by the Committee from the Executive Branch will be sent promptly to Committee Members through the Survey of Activities or by other means. (f) Access. Except as provided for above, access to materials classified Top Secret or otherwise restricted held by the Committee will be in approved Committee spaces. The following procedures will be observed: (1) Authorized persons will be permitted access to classified documents after inquiring of the Staff Director or an assigned staff member. Access to the SCIF will be afforded during regular Committee hours. (2) Authorized persons will be required to identify themselves, to identify the documents or information they wish to view, and to sign the Classified Materials Log, which is kept with the classified information. (3) The assigned staff member will be responsible for maintaining a log which identifies: (1) authorized persons seeking access, (2) the classified information requested, and (3) the time of arrival and departure of such persons. The assigned staff member will also assure that the classified materials are returned to the proper location. (g) Divulgence. Classified information provided to the Committee by the Executive Branch shall be handled in accordance with the procedures that apply within the Executive Branch for the protection of such information. Any classified information to which access has been gained through the Committee may not be divulged to any unauthorized person. Classified material shall not be photocopied or otherwise reproduced. In no event shall classified information be discussed in a non-secure environment. Apparent violations of this rule should be reported as promptly as possible to the Chairman for appropriate action. (h) Other Regulations. The Chairman, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may establish such additional regulations and procedures as in his judgment may be necessary to safeguard classified information under the control of the Committee. Members of the Committee will be given notice of any such regulations and procedures promptly. They may be modified or waived in any or all particulars by a majority vote of the full Committee. 21. broadcasting of committee hearings and meetings All Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings which are open to the public may be covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any such methods of coverage in accordance with the provisions of clause 3 of House rule XI. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall determine, in his or her discretion, the number of television and still cameras permitted in a hearing or meeting room, but shall not limit the number of television or still cameras to fewer than two (2) representatives from each medium. Such coverage shall be in accordance with the following requirements contained in section 116(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and clause 4 of XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives: (a) If the television, Internet or radio coverage of the hearing or meeting is to be presented to the public as live coverage, that coverage shall be conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship. (b) No witness served with a subpoena by the Committee shall be required against his will to be photographed at any hearing or to give evidence or testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing, by radio or television is being conducted. At the request of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio, television, Internet or still photography coverage, all lenses shall be covered and all microphones used for coverage turned off. This subparagraph is supplementary to clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to the protection of the rights of witnesses. (c) The allocation among cameras permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee in a hearing room shall be in accordance with fair and equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (d) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving evidence or testimony and Member of the Committee or its subcommittees or the visibility of that witness and that Member to each other. (e) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions but shall not be placed in positions which obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media. (f) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and radio media shall not be installed in, or removed from, the hearing or meeting room while the Committee or subcommittee is in session. (g) Floodlights, spotlights, strobe lights, and flashguns shall not be used in providing any method of coverage of the hearing or meeting, except that the television media may install additional lighting in the hearing room, without cost to the Government, in order to raise the ambient lighting level in the hearing room to the lowest level necessary to provide adequate television coverage of the hearing or meeting at the current state-of-the art level of television coverage. (h) In the allocation of the number of still photographers permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee in a hearing or meeting room, preference shall be given to photographers from Associated Press Photos, United Press International News pictures, and Reuters. If requests are made by more of the media than will be permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee for coverage of the hearing or meeting by still photography, that coverage shall be made on the basis of a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of Press Photographers. (i) Photographers shall not position themselves, at any time during the course of the hearing or meeting, between the witness table and the Members of the Committee or its subcommittees. (j) Photographers shall not place themselves in positions which obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media. (k) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (l) Personnel providing coverage by still photography shall be currently accredited to the Press Photographers' Gallery Committee of Press Photographers. (m) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media and by still photography shall conduct themselves and their coverage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive manner. 22. subpoena powers A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member not less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such days) prior to the issuance of such subpoena. In addition, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or its subcommittees in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of the Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairman or by any Member designated by the Committee. 23. recommendation for appointment of conferees Whenever the Speaker is to appoint a conference committee, the Chairman shall recommend to the Speaker as conferees those Members of the Committee who are primarily responsible for the legislation (including to the full extent practicable the principal proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House), who have actively participated in the Committee or subcommittee consideration of the legislation, and who agree to attend the meetings of the conference. With regard to the appointment of minority Members, the Chairman shall consult with the Ranking Minority Member. 24. general oversight Not later than March 1 of the first session of a Congress, the Chairman shall prepare, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, an oversight plan for that Congress; provide a copy of that plan to each member of the Committee for at least seven calendar days before its submission; and submit the plan (including any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views submitted by a member of the Committee) simultaneously to the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on House Administration, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of rule X of the House of Representatives. In accordance with the provisions of clause 2(n) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, the Committee or a subcommittee thereof shall hold at least one hearing during each 120-day period following its establishment on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in programs within its jurisdiction, as documented in reports received from a Federal Office of the Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the United States that have been provided to the Ranking Minority Member prior to the notice of the hearing pursuant to Committee rule 5. 25. other procedures and regulations The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may establish such other procedures and take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing rules or to facilitate the effective operation of the Committee. Any additional procedures or regulations may be modified or rescinded in any or all particulars by a majority vote of the full Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-04-pt1-PgH376 | null | 2,267 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS FOR THE 117th CONGRESS House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, February 4, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules of the 117th Congress for the Committee on Foreign Affairs for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted these rules by a voice vote, with a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on Wednesday, February 3, 2021. Sincerely, Gregory W. Meeks, Chariman. (Adopted February 3, 2021) 1. General Provisions (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives, and in particular, the committee rules enumerated in clause 2 of rule XI, are the rules of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (hereafter referred to as the ``Committee''), to the extent applicable. (b) A motion to recess and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are privileged non-debatable motions in Committee. (c) The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs shall consult the Ranking Minority Member to the extent possible with respect to the business of the Committee. Each subcommittee of the Committee is a part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules, to the extent applicable. 2. Date of Meeting The regular meeting date of the Committee shall be the first Tuesday of every month when the House of Representatives is in session pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as the Chairman may deem necessary or at the request of a majority of the Members of the Committee in accordance with clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. The determination of the business to be considered at each meeting shall be made by the Chairman subject to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the House of Representatives. A regularly scheduled meeting need not be held if, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no business to be considered. 3. Quorum For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two Members shall constitute a quorum, and the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall make every effort to ensure that the relevant Ranking Minority Member or another Minority Member is present at the time a hearing is convened. One-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action, except: (1) reporting a measure or recommendation; (2) closing Committee meetings and hearings to the public; (3) authorizing the issuance of subpoenas; and (4) any other action for which an actual majority quorum is required by any rule of the House of Representatives or by law. No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the full Committee by a subcommittee unless half of the subcommittee is actually present. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the Members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one Member. 4. Meetings and Hearings Open to the Public (a) Meetings: (1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, of the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public, because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise violate any labor rule of the House of Representatives. No person, other than Members of the Committee and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as the Committee or subcommittee may authorize, shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. This subsection does not apply to open Committee hearings which are provided for by subsection (b) of this rule. (2) The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment. The relevant Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. When exercising postponement authority, the relevant Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (b) Hearings: (1) Each hearing conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day should be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony-- (A) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or violate paragraph (2) of this subsection; or (B) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2) Whenever it is asserted by a Member of the Committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness-- (A) such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, if by a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony, the Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and (B) the Committee or subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the Committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. (3) No Member of the House of Representatives may be excluded from non-participatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee unless the House of Representatives has by majority vote authorized the Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings, on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members by the same procedures designated in this subsection for closing hearings to the public. (4) A Member of the House of Representatives who is not a Member of the Committee may not be recognized to participate in a Committee or Subcommittee hearing except by the unanimous consent of Committee Members present at such hearing. Participatory recognition of a non-Committee Member shall occur only after all Committee Members seeking recognition, both majority and minority, have had their opportunity to participate and question any witnesses. (5) The Committee or a subcommittee may by the procedure designated in this subsection vote to close one (1) subsequent day of hearing. (6) No congressional staff shall be present at any meeting or hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee that has been closed to the public, and at which classified information will be involved, unless such person is authorized access to such classified information in accordance with rule XX of the House of Representatives. 5. Convening Hearings and Markups (a) Hearings: (1) Notice. Public announcement shall be made of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee at the earliest possible date, and in any event at least one (1) week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, with the concurrence of the relevant Ranking Minority Member, determines that there is good cause to begin a hearing sooner, or if the Committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the Committee for the taking of action, the Chairman of the full Committee, if concurring, shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. No change shall be made to a publicly announced hearing title until after consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member and notice to previously announced witnesses. (2) Member Day Hearing. During the first session of each Congress, the full Committee shall hold a hearing at which it receives testimony from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. (b) Markups and Other Meetings to Transact Business: (1) Convening. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee may call or convene, as the relevant Chairman considers necessary, meetings of the Committee or subcommittee for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, or for the conduct of other Committee or subcommittee business. (2) Notice. Public announcement shall be made by the Chairman of the full Committee of the date, place, and subject matter of any markup or other meeting to conduct business at the earliest possible date, and in any event at least one (1) week before the commencement of such markup or meeting, unless the relevant Chairman determines, in consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member, that there is good cause to begin such a markup or meeting on an earlier date. If such determination is made, the Chairman of the full Committee, if concurring in that determination, shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (3) Agenda and Texts. The relevant Chairman shall provide to all Committee or subcommittee Members an agenda for each Committee and subcommittee markup or other meeting to transact business, setting out all items of business to be considered, including whenever possible a copy of any measure scheduled for markup, at least 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before the meeting. Bills on subjects not listed on such agenda shall be subject to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or subcommittee, or by the Chairman of the full Committee with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. The text of any measure to be marked up shall be made publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the markup meeting, or at the time of an announcement under subparagraph (b)(2) made within 24 hours before such meeting. (c) Publication. Public announcement of all hearings and markups shall be published in the Daily Digest portion of the Congressional Record and made publicly available in electronic form. Members shall be notified by the Staff Director of all meetings (including markups and hearings) and briefings of subcommittees and of the full Committee. (d) Member Seating. During Committee and subcommittee hearings and markups, chairs on the dais are for Members. No staff member other than a Committee or subcommittee staff director, counsel, or professional staff member may occupy a chair on the dais, unless authorized by the Chairman of the full Committee, after consultation with the Ranking Member of the Full Committee. Only one staff member each from the majority and the minority may occupy chairs on the dais at any time during a hearing or markup. 6. witnesses (a) Interrogation of Witnesses: (1) In so far as practicable, witnesses shall be permitted to present their oral statements without interruption subject to reasonable time constraints imposed by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, with questioning by the Committee Members taking place afterward. Members should refrain from questions until such statements are completed. (2) In recognizing Members, the relevant Chairman shall, to the extent practicable, give preference to the Members on the basis of their arrival at the hearing, taking into consideration the majority and minority ratio of the Members actually present. A Member desiring to speak or ask a question shall address the relevant Chairman and not the witness. (3) Subject to paragraph (4), each Member may interrogate the witness for 5 minutes, the reply of the witness being included in the 5-minute period. After all Members have had an opportunity to ask questions, the round shall begin again under the 5-minute rule. (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the relevant Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, may permit one (1) or more majority Members of the Committee designated by the relevant Chairman to question a witness for a specified period of not longer than 30 minutes. On such occasions, an equal number of minority Members of the Committee designated by the Ranking Minority Member shall be permitted to question the same witness for the same period of time. Committee staff may be permitted to question a witness for equal specified periods either with the concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee or by motion. However, in no case may questioning by Committee staff proceed before each Member of the Committee who wishes to speak under the 5-minute rule has had one opportunity to do so. (b) Testimony of Witnesses: (1) Advance Filing Requirement. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or a subcommittee is required to file testimony with the Committee or subcommittee at least two (2) business days in advance of that appearance. For purposes of this subsection, testimony includes the written statement of a witness, as well as any video, photographs, audio-visual matter, posters, or other supporting materials that the witness intends to present or display before the Committee. Such testimony should be provided in electronic form to the extent practicable. The Committee or subcommittee shall notify Members at least two business days in advance of a hearing of the availability of testimony submitted by witnesses. In addition, each witness shall provide sufficient copies, as determined by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, of his or her proposed written statement to be provided to Members and staff of the Committee or subcommittee, the news media, and the general public. The text of the written statement provided pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered final, and may not be revised by the witness after the Committee meeting at which the witness appears. (2) Witness Preclusion and Waiver. The requirements of paragraph (1) or any part thereof may be waived by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, or the presiding Member, or the Ranking Member of the Committee or subcommittee as it relates to witnesses who are called by the minority to testify, provided that the witness or the relevant Chairman or Ranking Minority Member has submitted, prior to the witness's appearance, a written explanation to the reasons testimony has not been made available to the Committee or subcommittee. If a witness who is not an official of the U.S. Government has not submitted testimony as required by paragraph (1) and no such written explanation has been submitted, the witness shall be released from testifying unless a majority of the Committee or subcommittee votes to accept his or her testimony. (3) Remote Witness Participation. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall promptly, and not later than 48 hours beforehand if possible, notify the relevant Ranking Member of any witness who is likely to present testimony other than in person, such as by videoconference. A witness may not testify via telephone or other audio-only medium without the concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee or subcommittee. The relevant Chairman shall make reasonable efforts to verify the identity of any witness participating remotely. (4) `Truth In Testimony' Disclosure. In the case of a witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed testimony shall, to the extent practicable, include: a curriculum vitae; a disclosure of the amount and source of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof), or of any contract, grant or payment originating with a foreign government, received during the past 36 months by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter of, and the witness' representational capacity at, the hearing; a disclosure of whether the witness is negotiating or awaiting approval to receive a contract with, a grant or payment from a foreign government; and a disclosure of whether the witness is fiduciary (including, but not limited to, a director, officer, advisor, or resident agent) of any organization or entity that has an interest in the subject matter of the hearing or an active registrant under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy, safety, or security of the witness, shall be made publicly available in electronic form 24 hours before the witness appears to the extent practicable, but not later than one day after the witness appears. (5) Witness Presentation. A witness shall limit his or her oral presentation to a brief summary of his or her written statement. (6) Translation. A witness requiring an interpreter or translator should include in the testimony provided pursuant to paragraph (1) the identity of the interpreter or translator that the witness intends to use. Unless properly noticed as a separate witness, an interpreter or translator appearing before the Committee should not present views or statements other than those expressed by the witness. (c) Oaths. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee, or any Member of the Committee designated by the relevant Chairman, may administer oaths to any witness appearing before the Committee. 7. preparation and maintenance of committee records An accurate stenographic record shall be made of all hearings and markup sessions. Members of the Committee and any witness may examine the transcript of his or her own remarks and may make any grammatical or technical changes that do not substantively alter the record. Any such Member or witness shall return the transcript to the Committee offices within seven (7) calendar days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after receipt of the transcript, or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Any information supplied for the record at the request of a Member of the Committee shall be provided to the Member when received by the Committee. Transcripts of hearings and markup sessions (except for the record of a meeting or hearing which is closed to the public) shall be printed as soon as is practicable after receipt of the corrected versions, except that the Chairman may order the transcript of a hearing to be printed without the corrections of a Member or witness if the Chairman determines that such Member or witness has been afforded a reasonable time to correct such transcript and such transcript has not been returned within such time. The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with rule VII of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee. The Committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, make its publications available in electronic form, including official prints of hearings and markups sessions. 8. extraneous materials in committee hearings prints No extraneous material shall be printed in either the body or appendices of any Committee or subcommittee hearing, except matter which has been accepted for inclusion in the record during the hearing or by agreement of the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee within five (5) calendar days of the hearing. Copies of bills and other legislation under consideration and responses to written questions submitted by Members shall not be considered extraneous material. Extraneous material in either the body or appendices of any hearing to be printed which would be in excess of eight (8) printed pages (for any one submission) shall be accompanied by a written request to the relevant Chairman. Such written request shall contain an estimate in writing from the Public Printer of the probable cost of publishing such material. 9. information on committee action (a) Record Votes. The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee outside of executive session shall be made publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote. Such result shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the name of each Member voting for and against, and the Members present but not voting. (b) Amendments. Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any amendment, or 48 hours after the disposition or withdrawal of any other amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee, the text of each such amendment shall be made publicly available in electronic form. (c) Hearing and Markup Attendance. Member attendance at each Committee hearing and markup shall be recorded and included in the Committee print of the transcript of that hearing or markup. 10. Proxies Proxy voting is not permitted in the Committee or in subcommittees. 11. Reports (a) Reports on Bills and Resolutions. To the extent practicable, not later than 24 hours before a report is to be filed with the Clerk of the House on a measure that has been ordered reported by the Committee, the Chairman shall make available for inspection by all Members of the Committee a copy of the draft Committee report in order to afford Members adequate information and the opportunity to draft and file any supplemental, minority or additional views which they may deem appropriate. With respect to each record vote on a motion to report any measure or matter of a public character, and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, and the names of those Members voting for and against, shall be included in any Committee report on the measure or matter. (b) Prior Approval of Certain Reports. No Committee, subcommittee, or staff report, study, or other document which purports to express publicly the views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Committee or a subcommittee may be released to the public or filed with the Clerk of the House unless approved by a majority of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to Members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day). In any case in which clause 2(l) of rule XI and clause 3(a)(1) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives does not apply, each Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall be given an opportunity to have views or a disclaimer included as part of the material filed or released, as the case may be. (c) Foreign Travel Reports. At the same time that the report required by clause 8(b)(3) of rule X of the House of Representatives, regarding foreign travel reports, is submitted to the Chairman, Members and employees of the Committee shall provide a report to the Chairman listing all official meetings, interviews, inspection tours and other official functions in which the individual participated, by country and date. Under extraordinary circumstances, the Chairman may waive the listing in such report of an official meeting, interview, inspection tour, or other official function. The report shall be maintained in the Committee offices and shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours. Except in extraordinary circumstances, no Member or employee of the Committee will be authorized for additional Committee travel until the reports described in this subsection have been submitted to the Chairman for that person's prior Committee travel. 12. Reporting Bills and Resolutions Except in extraordinary circumstances, bills and resolutions will not be considered by the Committee unless and until the appropriate subcommittee has recommended the bill or resolution for Committee action, and will not be taken to the House of Representatives for action unless and until the Committee or a relevant subcommittee has ordered reported such bill or resolution, a quorum being present. Except in extraordinary circumstances, a bill or resolution originating in the House of Representatives that contains exclusively findings and policy declarations or expressions of the sense of the House of Representatives or the sense of the Congress shall not be considered by the Committee or a subcommittee unless such bill or resolution has at least 25 House co-sponsors, at least 10 of whom are Members of the Committee. For purposes of this rule, extraordinary circumstances will be determined by the Chairman, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member and such other Members of the Committee as the Chairman deems appropriate. The Committee or a subcommittee shall not consider a bill or resolution originating in the House of Representatives that expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates, celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates the anniversary of, an entity, event, group, individual, institution, team, or government program, or that acknowledges or recognizes a period of time for such purposes, except in circumstances determined by the Chairman with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. The Chairman is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate. 13. staff services (a) The Committee staff shall be selected and organized so that it can provide a comprehensive range of professional services in the field of foreign affairs to the Committee, the subcommittees, and all its Members. The staff shall include persons with training and experience in foreign affairs, making available to the Committee individuals with knowledge of major countries, areas, and U.S. overseas programs and operations. (b) Subject to clause 9 of rule X of the House of Representatives, the staff of the Committee, except as provided in paragraph (c), shall be appointed by the Chairman with the approval of the majority of the Members in the majority party of the Committee. Their remuneration shall be fixed by the Chairman, and they shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chairman. Staff assignments are to be authorized by the Chairman or by the Staff Director under the direction of the Chairman. (c) Subject to clause 9 of rule X of the House of Representatives, the staff of the Committee assigned to the minority shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority Member with the approval of the majority of the minority party Members of the Committee. Their remuneration shall be fixed by the Ranking Minority Member, and they shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member. (d) The Chairman shall ensure that sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee. The Chairman shall ensure that the minority party is fairly treated in the appointment of such staff. 14. number and jurisdiction of subcommittees (a) Full Committee. The full Committee will be responsible for oversight and legislation relating to: foreign assistance (including development assistance, Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Millennium Challenge Account, HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, security assistance, and Public Law 480 programs abroad); management and operations of the State Department and other agencies of jurisdiction; national security developments affecting foreign policy; promotion of diversity and inclusion in the national security workforce; strategic planning and agreements; war powers, treaties, executive agreements, and the deployment and use of United States Armed Forces; peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and enforcement of United Nations or other international sanctions; arms control and disarmament issues; the International Development Finance Corporation, the United States Agency for International Development; activities and policies of the State, Commerce, and Defense Departments and other agencies related to the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign assistance Act, including export and licensing policy for munitions items and technology and dual-use equipment and technology; international law; interparliamentary engagement; promotion of democracy; international law enforcement issues, including narcotics control programs and activities; international cyber issues; Broadcasting Board of Governors; embassy security; international broadcasting; public diplomacy, including international communication and information policy, and international education and exchange programs; the Peace Corps, the American Red Cross; and all other matters not specifically assigned to a subcommittee. The full Committee will have jurisdiction over legislation with respect to the administration of the Export Administration Act, including the export and licensing of dual-use equipment and technology and other matters related to international economic policy and trade not otherwise assigned to a subcommittee, and with respect to the United Nations, its affiliated agencies, and other international organizations, including assessed and voluntary contributions to such organizations. The full Committee may conduct oversight and investigations with respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee as defined in the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) Subcommittees. There shall be six (6) standing subcommittees. The names and jurisdiction of those subcommittees shall be as follows: Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia and Nonproliferation Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy The subcommittees shall have jurisdiction over the following within their respective regions: (1) Matters affecting the political relations between the United States and other countries and regions, including resolutions or other legislative measures directed to such relations. (2) Legislation and oversight regarding human rights practices in particular countries. (3) Legislation with respect to region- or country-specific loans or other financial relations outside the Foreign Assistance Act. (4) Legislation with respect to disaster assistance outside the Foreign Assistance Act, boundary issues, and international claims. (5) Oversight of regional lending institutions. (6) Oversight of matters related to the regional activities of the United Nations, of its affiliated agencies, and of other multilateral institutions. (7) Identification and development of options for meeting future challenges relating to U.S. interests in the region including terrorism and cyber issues. (8) Oversight of base rights and other facilities access agreements and regional security pacts. (9) Concurrent oversight jurisdiction with respect to matters assigned to the other subcommittees insofar as they may affect the region. (10) Oversight of foreign assistance activities affecting the region. (11) Such other matters as the Chairman of the full Committee may determine. The Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: international health issues, including transboundary infectious diseases, maternal health and child survival, and programs related to the global ability to address health issues; population issues. In addition, legislation and oversight pertaining to global human rights. The Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia and Nonproliferation: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: nonproliferation matters involving nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction. The Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, including European economic alliances and security interests in former Soviet Union states, oversight of: global energy trends; energy security, responses to energy crises and challenges; international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; development of renewable energy technologies; promotion of transparency and good governance in the global energy sector; universal access to uninterrupted and affordable energy; climate change; environmental conservation and wildlife protection; and international cyber policy. The Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact: Oversight of: international development policy; the United Nations and its affiliated agencies (excluding peacekeeping and enforcement of United Nations or other international sanctions); and matters relating to corporate social impact and responsibility, including the promotion of responsible and ethical social, environmental and business practices. The Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of multilateral counterterrorism efforts. The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy: In addition to its regional jurisdiction, oversight of: matters relating to international economic and trade policy; commerce with foreign countries; international investment policy; the International Development Finance Corporation and Trade and Development Agency; commodity agreements; and special oversight of international financial and monetary institutions; the Export-Import Bank, and customs; civilian security, including transnational organized crime and preventing violence by state or non-state actors; and migration and forced displacement. With the concurrence of the Chairman of the full Committee, legislative jurisdiction over measures related to export promotion and measures related to the International Development Finance Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency. 15. powers and duties of subcommittees (a) In General. Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it. (b) Scheduling. Subcommittee chairmen shall set meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman, other subcommittee chairmen, the relevant Ranking Minority Member and other appropriate Members, with a view toward minimizing scheduling conflicts. Subcommittee meetings shall not be scheduled to occur simultaneously with meetings of the full Committee. Hearings shall not be scheduled to occur prior to the first vote or subsequent to the last vote of a legislative week, or outside of Washington, D.C., without prior consultation with the relevant Ranking Minority Member. In order to ensure orderly administration and fair assignment of hearing and meeting rooms, the subject, time, and location of hearings and meetings shall be arranged in advance with the Chairman through the Staff Director of the Committee. (c) Vice Chairmen. The Chairman of the Full Committee shall designate a Member of the majority party on each subcommittee as its vice chairman. (d) Participation. The Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority Member may attend the meetings and participate in the activities of all subcommittees of which they are not Members, except that they may not vote or be counted for a quorum in such subcommittees. (e) Required Oversight Hearings. During each 180-day period following organization of the Committee, each subcommittee shall hold at least one hearing on oversight of U.S. Government Activities. 16. referral of bills by chairman In accordance with rule 14 of the Committee and to the extent practicable, all legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall be referred by the Chairman to a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks. In accordance with rule 14 of the Committee, legislation may also be referred to additional subcommittees for consideration. Unless otherwise directed by the Chairman, such subcommittees shall act on or be discharged from consideration of legislation that has been approved by the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks of such action. In referring any legislation to a subcommittee, the Chairman may specify a date by which the subcommittee shall report thereon to the full Committee. Subcommittees with regional jurisdiction shall have joint jurisdiction with the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Global Human Rights and the Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations and Global Corporate Social Impact over legislation regarding human rights practices in particular countries within their regions. The Chairman may designate a subcommittee Chairman or other Member to take responsibility as manager of a bill or resolution during its consideration in the House of Representatives. 17. party ratios on subcommittees and conference committees The majority party caucus of the Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of majority to minority party Members for each subcommittee. Party representation on each subcommittee or conference committee shall be no less favorable to the majority party than the ratio for the full Committee. The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member are authorized to negotiate matters affecting such ratios including the size of subcommittees and conference committees. 18. subcommittee funding and records Each subcommittee shall have adequate funds to discharge its responsibility for legislation and oversight. In order to facilitate Committee compliance with clause 2(e)(1) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, each subcommittee shall keep a complete record of all subcommittee actions which shall include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded. The result of each record vote shall be promptly made available to the full Committee for inspection by the public in accordance with rule 9 of the Committee. All subcommittee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept distinct from the congressional office records of the Member serving as Chairman of the subcommittee. Subcommittee records shall be coordinated with the records of the full Committee, shall be the property of the House, and all Members of the House shall have access thereto. 19. meetings of subcommittee chairmen The Chairman shall call a meeting of the subcommittee chairmen on a regular basis not less frequently than once a month. Such a meeting need not be held if there is no business to conduct. It shall be the practice at such meetings to review the current agenda and activities of each of the subcommittees. 20. access to classified information (a) Authorized Persons. In accordance with the stipulations of the Rules of the House of Representatives, all Members of the House who have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives shall be authorized to have access to classified information within the possession of the Committee. Members of the Committee staff shall be considered authorized to have access to classified information within the possession of the Committee when they have the proper security clearances, when they have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives, and when they have a demonstrable need to know. The decision on whether a given staff member has a need to know will be made on the following basis: (1) In the case of the full Committee majority staff, by the Chairman, acting through the Staff Director; (2) In the case of the full Committee minority staff, by the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, acting through the Minority Staff Director; (3) In the case of subcommittee majority staff, by the chairman of the subcommittee; (4) In the case of the subcommittee minority staff, by the Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee. No other individuals shall be considered authorized persons, unless so designated by the Chairman of the full Committee. (b) Designated Persons. Each Committee Member is permitted to designate one member of his or her staff as having the right of access to information classified Confidential. Such designated persons must have the proper security clearance, have executed the oath required by clause 13 of rule XXIII of the House of Representatives, and have a need to know as determined by his or her principal. Upon request of a Committee Member in specific instances, a designated person also shall be permitted access to information classified Top Secret which has been furnished to the Committee pursuant to section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. Upon the written request of a Committee Member and with the approval of the Chairman in specific instances, a designated person may be permitted access to other classified materials. Designation of a staff person shall be by letter from the Committee Member to the Chairman. (c) Location. Classified information will be stored in secure safes in the Office of the Security Officer and in the Office of the Minority Staff Director. All materials classified Top Secret or higher must be stored in a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF). (d) Handling. Materials classified Confidential or Secret may be taken from Committee offices to other Committee offices and hearing rooms by Members of the Committee and authorized Committee staff in connection with hearings and briefings of the Committee or its subcommittees for which such information is deemed to be essential. Removal of such information from the Committee offices shall be only with the permission of the Chairman under procedures designed to ensure the safe handling and storage of such information at all times. Except as provided in this paragraph, Top Secret materials may not be taken from approved storage areas for any purpose, except that such materials may be taken to hearings and other meetings that are being conducted at the Top Secret level when necessary. Materials classified Top Secret may otherwise be used under conditions approved by the Chairman after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. (e) Notice. Appropriate notice of the receipt of classified documents received by the Committee from the Executive Branch will be sent promptly to Committee Members through the Survey of Activities or by other means. (f) Access. Except as provided for above, access to materials classified Top Secret or otherwise restricted held by the Committee will be in approved Committee spaces. The following procedures will be observed: (1) Authorized persons will be permitted access to classified documents after inquiring of the Staff Director or an assigned staff member. Access to the SCIF will be afforded during regular Committee hours. (2) Authorized persons will be required to identify themselves, to identify the documents or information they wish to view, and to sign the Classified Materials Log, which is kept with the classified information. (3) The assigned staff member will be responsible for maintaining a log which identifies: (1) authorized persons seeking access, (2) the classified information requested, and (3) the time of arrival and departure of such persons. The assigned staff member will also assure that the classified materials are returned to the proper location. (g) Divulgence. Classified information provided to the Committee by the Executive Branch shall be handled in accordance with the procedures that apply within the Executive Branch for the protection of such information. Any classified information to which access has been gained through the Committee may not be divulged to any unauthorized person. Classified material shall not be photocopied or otherwise reproduced. In no event shall classified information be discussed in a non-secure environment. Apparent violations of this rule should be reported as promptly as possible to the Chairman for appropriate action. (h) Other Regulations. The Chairman, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may establish such additional regulations and procedures as in his judgment may be necessary to safeguard classified information under the control of the Committee. Members of the Committee will be given notice of any such regulations and procedures promptly. They may be modified or waived in any or all particulars by a majority vote of the full Committee. 21. broadcasting of committee hearings and meetings All Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings which are open to the public may be covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any such methods of coverage in accordance with the provisions of clause 3 of House rule XI. The Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee shall determine, in his or her discretion, the number of television and still cameras permitted in a hearing or meeting room, but shall not limit the number of television or still cameras to fewer than two (2) representatives from each medium. Such coverage shall be in accordance with the following requirements contained in section 116(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and clause 4 of XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives: (a) If the television, Internet or radio coverage of the hearing or meeting is to be presented to the public as live coverage, that coverage shall be conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship. (b) No witness served with a subpoena by the Committee shall be required against his will to be photographed at any hearing or to give evidence or testimony while the broadcasting of that hearing, by radio or television is being conducted. At the request of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio, television, Internet or still photography coverage, all lenses shall be covered and all microphones used for coverage turned off. This subparagraph is supplementary to clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to the protection of the rights of witnesses. (c) The allocation among cameras permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee in a hearing room shall be in accordance with fair and equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (d) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving evidence or testimony and Member of the Committee or its subcommittees or the visibility of that witness and that Member to each other. (e) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions but shall not be placed in positions which obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media. (f) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and radio media shall not be installed in, or removed from, the hearing or meeting room while the Committee or subcommittee is in session. (g) Floodlights, spotlights, strobe lights, and flashguns shall not be used in providing any method of coverage of the hearing or meeting, except that the television media may install additional lighting in the hearing room, without cost to the Government, in order to raise the ambient lighting level in the hearing room to the lowest level necessary to provide adequate television coverage of the hearing or meeting at the current state-of-the art level of television coverage. (h) In the allocation of the number of still photographers permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee in a hearing or meeting room, preference shall be given to photographers from Associated Press Photos, United Press International News pictures, and Reuters. If requests are made by more of the media than will be permitted by the Chairman of the full Committee or a subcommittee for coverage of the hearing or meeting by still photography, that coverage shall be made on the basis of a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of Press Photographers. (i) Photographers shall not position themselves, at any time during the course of the hearing or meeting, between the witness table and the Members of the Committee or its subcommittees. (j) Photographers shall not place themselves in positions which obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media. (k) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (l) Personnel providing coverage by still photography shall be currently accredited to the Press Photographers' Gallery Committee of Press Photographers. (m) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media and by still photography shall conduct themselves and their coverage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive manner. 22. subpoena powers A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member not less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such days) prior to the issuance of such subpoena. In addition, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or its subcommittees in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of the Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairman or by any Member designated by the Committee. 23. recommendation for appointment of conferees Whenever the Speaker is to appoint a conference committee, the Chairman shall recommend to the Speaker as conferees those Members of the Committee who are primarily responsible for the legislation (including to the full extent practicable the principal proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House), who have actively participated in the Committee or subcommittee consideration of the legislation, and who agree to attend the meetings of the conference. With regard to the appointment of minority Members, the Chairman shall consult with the Ranking Minority Member. 24. general oversight Not later than March 1 of the first session of a Congress, the Chairman shall prepare, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, an oversight plan for that Congress; provide a copy of that plan to each member of the Committee for at least seven calendar days before its submission; and submit the plan (including any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views submitted by a member of the Committee) simultaneously to the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on House Administration, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of rule X of the House of Representatives. In accordance with the provisions of clause 2(n) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, the Committee or a subcommittee thereof shall hold at least one hearing during each 120-day period following its establishment on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in programs within its jurisdiction, as documented in reports received from a Federal Office of the Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the United States that have been provided to the Ranking Minority Member prior to the notice of the hearing pursuant to Committee rule 5. 25. other procedures and regulations The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may establish such other procedures and take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing rules or to facilitate the effective operation of the Committee. Any additional procedures or regulations may be modified or rescinded in any or all particulars by a majority vote of the full Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-04-pt1-PgH376 | null | 2,268 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-130. A letter from the OSD FRLO, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's direct final rule -- Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation [Docket ID: DOD-2019-OS-0122] (RIN: 0790-AK47) received February 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-131. A letter from the OSD FRLO, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- DoD Policy on Organizations That Seek To Represent or Organize Members of the Armed Forces in Negotiations or Collective Bargaining [Docket ID: DOD-2020- OS-0049] (RIN: 0790-AK23) received February 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-132. A letter from the OSD FRLO, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Assignment of American National Red Cross and United Service Organizations, Inc., Employees to Duty with the Military Services [Docket ID: DOD-2019-OS- 0006] (RIN: 0790-AK50) received February 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-133. A letter from the Programs Specialist, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Licensing Amendments: Technical Correction [Docket No.: OCC-2019-0024] (RIN: 1557-AE71) received January 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-134. A letter from the Program Specialist, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Regulatory Capital Treatment for Investments in Certain Unsecured Debt Instruments of Global Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies, Certain Intermediate Holding Companies, and Global Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations; Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity Requirements [Docket ID: OCC-2018-0019] (RIN: 1557-AE38) received January 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-135. A letter from the Section Chief, Diversion Control Division, DEA, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Controls To Enhance the Cultivation of Marijuana for Research in the United States [Docket No.: DEA-506] (RIN: 1117-AB54) received January 13, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-136. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's temporary staff guidance -- Draft Guidelines for Characterizing the Safety Impact of Issues received January 5, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-137. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Updated Aging Management Criteria for Reactor Vessel Internal Components for Pressurized-Water Reactors [SLR-ISG-2020-01-PWRVI] received January 5, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-138. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's NUREG -- NUREG-2013, ``Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors'' received January 5, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-139. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's Issuance of Regulatory Guide -- Regulatory Guide 1.239 ``Licensee Actions to Address Nonconservative Technical Specifications'' received January 11, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-140. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's issuance of regulatory guidance -- Regulatory Guide 1.191, ``Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Plants During Decommissioning'' received January 11, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-141. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final guidance -- NUREG/CR-07002 Rev. 1 Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies [NRC- 2008-0122; #2020-18818] received February 1, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-142. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's issuance of regulatory guidance -- Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.177, ``Plant-Specific, Risk Informed Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications'' received February 1, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-143. A letter from the Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, DOJ (on behalf of all the participating Agencies), Department of Justice et al., transmitting the Department's final rule -- Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in the Federal Agencies' Programs and Activities [ED-2019-OPE-0080; DHS-2019-0049; USDA-2020-0009; AID-2020-0001; HUD-2020-0017; DOJ-OAG-2020-0001; A.G. Order No. 4925-2020; DOL-2019-0006; VA-2020-VACO-0003; HHS-OS-2020- 0001] (RIN: 0412-AA99; 0510-AA00; 0991-AC13; 1105-AB58; 1291- AA41; 1601-AA93; 2501-AD91; 2900-AQ75) received January 11, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-144. A letter from the Wildlife Biologist, Migratory Bird Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Migratory Bird Permits; Management of Conflicts Associated With Double-Crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) Throughout the United States [Docket No.: FWS-HQ-MB-2019- 0103; FF09M22000-201-FXMB1232090000] (RIN: 1018-BE67) received January 11, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-145. A letter from the Biologist, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife [Docket No.: FWS-R4-ES- 2018-0082; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] (RIN: 1018-BC11) received February 1, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-146. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Coastal Distinct Population Segment of the Pacific Marten With a Section 4(d) Rule [Docket No.: FWS-R8- | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-04-pt1-PgH381-2 | null | 2,269 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 85, I call up the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEVIN of Michigan | House | CREC-2021-02-05-pt1-PgH393-4 | null | 2,270 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 85, I call up the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEVIN of Michigan | House | CREC-2021-02-05-pt1-PgH393-4 | null | 2,271 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, will now resume. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-02-05-pt1-PgH455 | null | 2,272 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, will now resume. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-02-05-pt1-PgH455 | null | 2,273 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the passing of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), the whole number of the House is 431. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgH473-6 | null | 2,274 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The President, prior to sine die adjournment of the Second Session, 116th Congress, notified the Clerk of the House that on the following dates, he had approved and signed bills of the Senate of the following titles: October 1, 2020: S. 2193. An Act to require the Administrator of General Services to issue guidance to clarify that Federal agencies may pay by charge card for the charging of Federal electric motor vehicles, and for other purposes. S. 3105. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 456 North Meridian Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Richard G. Lugar Post Office''. October 10, 2020: S. 227. An Act to direct the Attorney General to review, revise, and develop law enforcement and justice protocols appropriate to address missing and murdered Indians, and for other purposes. S. 982. An Act to increase intergovernmental coordination to identify and combat violent crime within Indian lands and of Indians. October 13, 2020: S. 490. An Act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 1646. An Act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 4072. An Act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. October 17, 2020: S. 743. An Act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An Act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 2661. An Act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. October 20, 2020: S. 294. An Act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 832. An Act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 1321. An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. October 21, 2020: S. 209. An Act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 881. An Act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1380. An Act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. October 30, 2020: S. 2330. An Act to amend the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to provide for congressional oversight of the board of directors of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and to protect amateur athletes from emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and for other purposes. S. 2638. An Act to amend title 49, United State Code, to require small hub airports to construct areas for nursing mothers, and for other purposes. S. 3051. An Act to improve protections for wildlife, and for other purposes. S. 3758. An Act to amend the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2000 to make certain technical corrections. S. 4075. An Act to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for the release of certain Federal interests in connection with certain grants under that Act, and for other purposes. S. 4762. An Act to designate the airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''. December 3, 2020: S. 327. An Act to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for a lifetime National Recreational Pass for any veteran with a service-connected disability. December 4, 2020: S. 3147. An Act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress reports on patient safety and quality of care at medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 3587. An Act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on the accessibility of websites of the Department of Veterans Affairs to individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes. December 11, 2020: S. 1982. An Act to improve efforts to combat marine debris, and for other purposes. S. 4054. An Act to reauthorize the United States Grain Standards Act, and for other purposes. December 18, 2020: S. 910. An Act to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes. S. 945. An Act to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to require certain issuers to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission information regarding foreign jurisdictions that prevent the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board from performing inspections under that Act, and for other purposes. S. 1069. An Act to require the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to establish a constituent-driven program to provide a digital information platform capable of efficiently integrating coastal data with decision-support tools, training, and best practices and to support collection of priority coastal geospatial data to inform and improve local, State, regional, and Federal capacities to manage the coastal region, and for other purposes. December 21, 2020: S. 4902. An Act to designate the United States courthouse located at 351 South West Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the ``Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse''. December 22, 2020: S. 134. An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking. S. 578. An Act to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. S. 1153. An Act to explicitly make unauthorized access to Department of Education information technology systems and the misuse of identification devices issued by the Department of Education a criminal act. S. 3703. An Act to amend the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act to improve the prevention of elder abuse and exploitation of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. December 23, 2020: S. 199. An Act to provide for the transfer of certain Federal land in the State of Minnesota for the benefit of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. S. 1014. An Act to establish the Route 66 Centennial Commission, and for other purposes. S. 2258. An Act to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust whistleblowers. S. 2904. An Act to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on the outputs that may be generated by generative adversarial networks, otherwise known as deepfakes, and other comparable techniques that may be developed in the future, and for other purposes. S. 2981. An Act to reauthorize and amend the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002, and for other purposes. December 30, 2020: 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. 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. 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. 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. Ingman, Jr. Post Office Building''. S. 3461. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2600 Wesley Street in Greenville, Texas, as the ``Audie Murphy Post Office Building''. S. 3462. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 909 West Holiday Drive in Fate, Texas, as the ``Ralph Hall Post Office''. S. 4126. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 104 East Main Street in Port Washington, Wisconsin, as the ``Joseph G. Demler Post Office''. S. 4684. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. Brown Post Office''. 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. December 31, 2020: 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. 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. 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. 3312. An Act to establish a crisis stabilization and community reentry grant program, and for other purposes. 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. January 1, 2021: 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgH486 | null | 2,275 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The President, prior to sine die adjournment of the Second Session, 116th Congress, notified the Clerk of the House that on the following dates, he had approved and signed bills of the Senate of the following titles: October 1, 2020: S. 2193. An Act to require the Administrator of General Services to issue guidance to clarify that Federal agencies may pay by charge card for the charging of Federal electric motor vehicles, and for other purposes. S. 3105. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 456 North Meridian Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Richard G. Lugar Post Office''. October 10, 2020: S. 227. An Act to direct the Attorney General to review, revise, and develop law enforcement and justice protocols appropriate to address missing and murdered Indians, and for other purposes. S. 982. An Act to increase intergovernmental coordination to identify and combat violent crime within Indian lands and of Indians. October 13, 2020: S. 490. An Act to designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 Ridge''. S. 1646. An Act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in St. Augustine, Florida, as the ``Leo C. Chase Jr. Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. S. 4072. An Act to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, Oregon, as the ``Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''. October 17, 2020: S. 743. An Act to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the soldiers of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), commonly known as ``Merrill's Marauders'', in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service in the jungles of Burma during World War II. S. 785. An Act to improve mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 2661. An Act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to designate 9-8-8 as the universal telephone number for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and through the Veterans Crisis Line, and for other purposes. October 20, 2020: S. 294. An Act to establish a business incubators program within the Department of the Interior to promote economic development in Indian reservation communities. S. 832. An Act to nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, concluded on November 15, 1865. S. 1321. An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. October 21, 2020: S. 209. An Act to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide further self-governance by Indian Tribes, and for other purposes. S. 881. An Act to improve understanding and forecasting of space weather events, and for other purposes. S. 1380. An Act to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to remind prosecutors of their obligations under Supreme Court case law. October 30, 2020: S. 2330. An Act to amend the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to provide for congressional oversight of the board of directors of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and to protect amateur athletes from emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and for other purposes. S. 2638. An Act to amend title 49, United State Code, to require small hub airports to construct areas for nursing mothers, and for other purposes. S. 3051. An Act to improve protections for wildlife, and for other purposes. S. 3758. An Act to amend the Klamath Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2000 to make certain technical corrections. S. 4075. An Act to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for the release of certain Federal interests in connection with certain grants under that Act, and for other purposes. S. 4762. An Act to designate the airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''. December 3, 2020: S. 327. An Act to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for a lifetime National Recreational Pass for any veteran with a service-connected disability. December 4, 2020: S. 3147. An Act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress reports on patient safety and quality of care at medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 3587. An Act to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on the accessibility of websites of the Department of Veterans Affairs to individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes. December 11, 2020: S. 1982. An Act to improve efforts to combat marine debris, and for other purposes. S. 4054. An Act to reauthorize the United States Grain Standards Act, and for other purposes. December 18, 2020: S. 910. An Act to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes. S. 945. An Act to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to require certain issuers to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission information regarding foreign jurisdictions that prevent the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board from performing inspections under that Act, and for other purposes. S. 1069. An Act to require the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to establish a constituent-driven program to provide a digital information platform capable of efficiently integrating coastal data with decision-support tools, training, and best practices and to support collection of priority coastal geospatial data to inform and improve local, State, regional, and Federal capacities to manage the coastal region, and for other purposes. December 21, 2020: S. 4902. An Act to designate the United States courthouse located at 351 South West Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the ``Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse''. December 22, 2020: S. 134. An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking. S. 578. An Act to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. S. 1153. An Act to explicitly make unauthorized access to Department of Education information technology systems and the misuse of identification devices issued by the Department of Education a criminal act. S. 3703. An Act to amend the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act to improve the prevention of elder abuse and exploitation of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. December 23, 2020: S. 199. An Act to provide for the transfer of certain Federal land in the State of Minnesota for the benefit of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. S. 1014. An Act to establish the Route 66 Centennial Commission, and for other purposes. S. 2258. An Act to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust whistleblowers. S. 2904. An Act to direct the Director of the National Science Foundation to support research on the outputs that may be generated by generative adversarial networks, otherwise known as deepfakes, and other comparable techniques that may be developed in the future, and for other purposes. S. 2981. An Act to reauthorize and amend the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002, and for other purposes. December 30, 2020: 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. 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. 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. 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. Ingman, Jr. Post Office Building''. S. 3461. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2600 Wesley Street in Greenville, Texas, as the ``Audie Murphy Post Office Building''. S. 3462. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 909 West Holiday Drive in Fate, Texas, as the ``Ralph Hall Post Office''. S. 4126. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 104 East Main Street in Port Washington, Wisconsin, as the ``Joseph G. Demler Post Office''. S. 4684. An Act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. Brown Post Office''. 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. December 31, 2020: 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. 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. 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. 3312. An Act to establish a crisis stabilization and community reentry grant program, and for other purposes. 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. January 1, 2021: 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgH486 | null | 2,276 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Russia Madam President, I have other short remarks that I want to make on another subject. Twelve years ago this past Sunday, then-Vice President Biden was in Munich, Germany, to deliver the Obama administration's first major foreign policy speech to world leaders. He said: It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia. The premise was that the Bush administration had been too tough on Russia, and a more conciliatory approach was needed. Beyond the rhetoric, this involved abruptly scrapping planned missile defense cooperation with our allies, the Czechs and Poles, on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Keep in mind, this was 6 months after Russia had invaded and occupied territory of our ally, the Republic of Georgia, an occupation that is still ongoing this very day. That all happened a year after the publication of the book entitled ``The New Cold War,'' by Edward Lucas, detailing the dangerous nature of the Putin regime. The Russia reset was not just a failure; the reset was ill-conceived and counterproductive from the start. Putin's Russia, like the Soviet Union before it, only understands strength. Unilateral concessions actually encouraged further aggression, like we saw and still see with Ukraine. I appreciate now-President Biden's more recent tough talk on Russia. I like his rhetoric better than many things that President Trump said. However, I like Trump's actions, like sanctions against the Nord Stream Pipeline, arming and training the Ukrainian military, and partnering with our frontline allies. The Biden administration no longer talks of a Russian reset, but it has already announced the extension of the one legacy of the reset policy. The New START Treaty with Russia gutted important monitoring and verification measures that were included in the predecessor agreement. President Reagan famously quoted a Russian proverb, ``Trust, but verify,'' when he was negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev. New START cut out the ``verify'' part, leaving only ``trust.'' But surely we have all learned by now that we cannot trust Vladimir Putin. He has been caught redhanded violating other arms control treaties. So, as recently happened, extending the New START treaty without trying to improve it is a missed opportunity. I hope that President Biden's future actions more closely match his words, and he scraps all vestiges of the Obama Russian reset policy that he announced 12 years ago this weekend. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS562 | null | 2,277 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Remembering George Shultz Madam President, on a completely different matter, on Saturday, we lost a great statesman and scholar who gave more than 80 of his 100 years to his country. George Shultz's service began in the U.S. Marine Corps. From the beaches of Palau, he was among the Americans who helped retake the Pacific from Japan. Back home, he earned a Ph.D. in economics. He taught at MIT and would later helm the University of Chicago's Graduate Business School. But public service beckoned, and George Shultz began a decades-long run of ping-ponging prolifically between academia and top government posts. The first of three Presidents who would benefit from his expert counsel, Dwight Eisenhower, hired him as a senior staff economist back in 1955. A decade and a half later, he was back, this time as President Nixon's Secretary of Labor, where he worked on desegregation and, later, as OMB Director. Then, at a pivotal moment for the U.S. and world economies, George Shultz was tapped to lead the Treasury Department. He fought inflation and workedto modernize our monetary policy so American leaders could control America's destiny. After an interlude in the private sector, Secretary Shultz's country came calling again. He spent 6\1/2\ of President Reagan's 8 years as Secretary of State. He helped steer the smart and strong foreign policy that clinched the free world's victory over the Soviet Union, but even as the Reagan administration nudged communism into a box canyon, this top diplomat's master touch was vital in making sure that tensions did not rise too high. As amazing as it sounds, this impressive resume doesn't fully explain George Shultz's incredible reputation. It wasn't just all he did. It was how he did it. He led with thoughtfulness, fairness, and, above all, integrity. He lived by the maxim he shared in his centennial reflection just a few weeks ago. Here is what he said: Trust is the coin of the realm. His honesty and thoughtfulness won wide admiration that transcended politics. He won the trust of career diplomats and State Department staff, including those who did not naturally lean to the Reagan right. Famously, when new Ambassadors met with him on their way abroad, the Secretary would spin a globe and ask them to point out ``their country.'' The unlucky ones who fell for the trap and pointed to their foreign destinations were swiftly corrected. ``No,'' he said. ``Your country is always America.'' At the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, we host a distinguished speaker series. George Shultz honored us as our very first ever distinguished speaker back in 1993, and he kept right on writing and speaking and mentoring young people up until just a few weeks ago. America was his country, all right. He loved it deeply and served it always. The Senate's prayers are with the Shultz family and all the friends and colleagues he leaves behind, a truly remarkable life. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS563-3 | null | 2,278 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Remembering George Shultz Madam President, on a completely different matter, on Saturday, we lost a great statesman and scholar who gave more than 80 of his 100 years to his country. George Shultz's service began in the U.S. Marine Corps. From the beaches of Palau, he was among the Americans who helped retake the Pacific from Japan. Back home, he earned a Ph.D. in economics. He taught at MIT and would later helm the University of Chicago's Graduate Business School. But public service beckoned, and George Shultz began a decades-long run of ping-ponging prolifically between academia and top government posts. The first of three Presidents who would benefit from his expert counsel, Dwight Eisenhower, hired him as a senior staff economist back in 1955. A decade and a half later, he was back, this time as President Nixon's Secretary of Labor, where he worked on desegregation and, later, as OMB Director. Then, at a pivotal moment for the U.S. and world economies, George Shultz was tapped to lead the Treasury Department. He fought inflation and workedto modernize our monetary policy so American leaders could control America's destiny. After an interlude in the private sector, Secretary Shultz's country came calling again. He spent 6\1/2\ of President Reagan's 8 years as Secretary of State. He helped steer the smart and strong foreign policy that clinched the free world's victory over the Soviet Union, but even as the Reagan administration nudged communism into a box canyon, this top diplomat's master touch was vital in making sure that tensions did not rise too high. As amazing as it sounds, this impressive resume doesn't fully explain George Shultz's incredible reputation. It wasn't just all he did. It was how he did it. He led with thoughtfulness, fairness, and, above all, integrity. He lived by the maxim he shared in his centennial reflection just a few weeks ago. Here is what he said: Trust is the coin of the realm. His honesty and thoughtfulness won wide admiration that transcended politics. He won the trust of career diplomats and State Department staff, including those who did not naturally lean to the Reagan right. Famously, when new Ambassadors met with him on their way abroad, the Secretary would spin a globe and ask them to point out ``their country.'' The unlucky ones who fell for the trap and pointed to their foreign destinations were swiftly corrected. ``No,'' he said. ``Your country is always America.'' At the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, we host a distinguished speaker series. George Shultz honored us as our very first ever distinguished speaker back in 1993, and he kept right on writing and speaking and mentoring young people up until just a few weeks ago. America was his country, all right. He loved it deeply and served it always. The Senate's prayers are with the Shultz family and all the friends and colleagues he leaves behind, a truly remarkable life. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS563-3 | null | 2,279 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to the late Richard L. Thornburgh, a former Pennsylvania Governor and former U.S. Attorney General. Dick Thornburgh was also a hero to the disability community for his longstanding advocacy for the rights and self-determination of people with disabilities. Born in Pittsburgh on July 16, 1932, Dick received an undergraduate degree from Yale University and a law degree from the University of Pittsburgh Law School before going into private practice. In 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Dick as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and in 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed him to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Criminal Division. Two years later, he returned to Pennsylvania. In 1978, Dick was elected Governor of Pennsylvania and was reelected in 1982, becoming the first Republican to serve two successive terms as Governor of the Commonwealth. During his time in office, Governor Thornburgh provided a steady hand and a calm demeanor. Most notably, he led Pennsylvania through the Three Mile Island crisis, America's worst nuclear meltdown. He took charge of the crisis and in so doing won praise from President Jimmy Carter and from Pennsylvanians for how he handled the potential disaster. At the time of the Three Mile Island Crisis, Governor Thornburgh said: You have to reassure people. You have to go before the cameras and microphones and tell them what you know and what you don't. You have to stop the rumors and, of course, you have to make decisions. There isn't any Republican or Democratic way to deal with a nuclear crisis. Nobody has ever had to deal with this kind of accident before. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan nominated Governor Thornburgh to be the U.S. Attorney General, a position in which he served until 1991. He resigned in 1991 to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania following the tragic death of Senator John Heinz in a plane crash. Governor Thornburgh lost the Senate election to Harris Wofford, who had been appointed to the vacancy 6 months before the 1991 election. Following his Senate run, Governor Thornburgh served a 1-year appointment as Under-Secretary General at the United Nations at the request of President George H.W. Bush. In that role, he sought to bring reform, transparency, and accountability to the United Nations. After his service at the United Nations, Governor Thornburgh returned to private practice but would continue to serve in advisory roles at the State and Federal level, imparting his wisdom and experience in a number of different arenas. Of his many contributions to public life, Governor Thornburgh was especially respected in the disability rights community for his tireless advocacy for the rights and self-determination of people with disabilities. Governor Thornburgh's son, Peter, was injured in a car accident in 1960, a tragic accident that also killed Thornburgh's wife, Ginny Hooton. The accident left Peter Thornburgh, then just 4 months of age, with a significant brain injury that caused physical and intellectual disabilities. Governor Thornburgh is quoted as saying that the accident ``made him think about what he could do with his life to contribute to the world.'' As Attorney General in Bush Administration, Dick Thornburgh helped to shepherd the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, through Congress during a most critical period in 1989. OnJune 21, 1989, then Attorney General Thornburgh affirmed to the disability community and the Nation the Bush administration's intent to support the passage of the ADA and to sign the legislation when Congress passed the bill. When the ADA passed Congress, Attorney General Thornburgh said that the day was ``one of emancipation, not just for the millions of Americans with disabilities who will directly benefit from this Act, but even more so for the rest of us now free to benefit from the contributions which those with a disability can make to our economy, our communities and our own well-being.'' Walter Cohen, who served as both Pennsylvania's secretary of public welfare and attorney general, stated that Governor Thornburgh was responsible for Pennsylvania creating home and community based services for people with disabilities and for ordering the closure of the Pennhurst State School and Hospital, which had been found to be housing hundreds of people with developmental and intellectual disabilities in squalor. Mr. President, for many Governor Thornburgh is known for his decades of public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to the Federal Government. He is deserving of this recognition, and the people of Pennsylvania owe him their deepest gratitude for his service. But any discussion of Governor Thornburgh's service would be incomplete if we did not pause to note that because of his efforts, in part, the lives of people with disabilities have been dramatically improved. Our built environment and transportation system have been made available to all people. It is now understood that every child, no matter their disability, has the right to a quality, public education. People with disabilities, rather than living in institutions, are now free to grow up and flourish in the community and setting of their choice. These opportunities may be taken for granted now, but they were hard fought gains achieved through the sweat and tears of the disability community and those who fought alongside them every step of the way. Dick Thornburgh was one of the greatest of these champions. His public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is worthy of commendation. We extend condolences to Dick's wife, Ginny, his sons, John, David, Peter and William, and to his grandchildren and great grandchildren. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS569-3 | null | 2,280 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to the late Richard L. Thornburgh, a former Pennsylvania Governor and former U.S. Attorney General. Dick Thornburgh was also a hero to the disability community for his longstanding advocacy for the rights and self-determination of people with disabilities. Born in Pittsburgh on July 16, 1932, Dick received an undergraduate degree from Yale University and a law degree from the University of Pittsburgh Law School before going into private practice. In 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Dick as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and in 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed him to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Criminal Division. Two years later, he returned to Pennsylvania. In 1978, Dick was elected Governor of Pennsylvania and was reelected in 1982, becoming the first Republican to serve two successive terms as Governor of the Commonwealth. During his time in office, Governor Thornburgh provided a steady hand and a calm demeanor. Most notably, he led Pennsylvania through the Three Mile Island crisis, America's worst nuclear meltdown. He took charge of the crisis and in so doing won praise from President Jimmy Carter and from Pennsylvanians for how he handled the potential disaster. At the time of the Three Mile Island Crisis, Governor Thornburgh said: You have to reassure people. You have to go before the cameras and microphones and tell them what you know and what you don't. You have to stop the rumors and, of course, you have to make decisions. There isn't any Republican or Democratic way to deal with a nuclear crisis. Nobody has ever had to deal with this kind of accident before. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan nominated Governor Thornburgh to be the U.S. Attorney General, a position in which he served until 1991. He resigned in 1991 to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania following the tragic death of Senator John Heinz in a plane crash. Governor Thornburgh lost the Senate election to Harris Wofford, who had been appointed to the vacancy 6 months before the 1991 election. Following his Senate run, Governor Thornburgh served a 1-year appointment as Under-Secretary General at the United Nations at the request of President George H.W. Bush. In that role, he sought to bring reform, transparency, and accountability to the United Nations. After his service at the United Nations, Governor Thornburgh returned to private practice but would continue to serve in advisory roles at the State and Federal level, imparting his wisdom and experience in a number of different arenas. Of his many contributions to public life, Governor Thornburgh was especially respected in the disability rights community for his tireless advocacy for the rights and self-determination of people with disabilities. Governor Thornburgh's son, Peter, was injured in a car accident in 1960, a tragic accident that also killed Thornburgh's wife, Ginny Hooton. The accident left Peter Thornburgh, then just 4 months of age, with a significant brain injury that caused physical and intellectual disabilities. Governor Thornburgh is quoted as saying that the accident ``made him think about what he could do with his life to contribute to the world.'' As Attorney General in Bush Administration, Dick Thornburgh helped to shepherd the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, through Congress during a most critical period in 1989. OnJune 21, 1989, then Attorney General Thornburgh affirmed to the disability community and the Nation the Bush administration's intent to support the passage of the ADA and to sign the legislation when Congress passed the bill. When the ADA passed Congress, Attorney General Thornburgh said that the day was ``one of emancipation, not just for the millions of Americans with disabilities who will directly benefit from this Act, but even more so for the rest of us now free to benefit from the contributions which those with a disability can make to our economy, our communities and our own well-being.'' Walter Cohen, who served as both Pennsylvania's secretary of public welfare and attorney general, stated that Governor Thornburgh was responsible for Pennsylvania creating home and community based services for people with disabilities and for ordering the closure of the Pennhurst State School and Hospital, which had been found to be housing hundreds of people with developmental and intellectual disabilities in squalor. Mr. President, for many Governor Thornburgh is known for his decades of public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to the Federal Government. He is deserving of this recognition, and the people of Pennsylvania owe him their deepest gratitude for his service. But any discussion of Governor Thornburgh's service would be incomplete if we did not pause to note that because of his efforts, in part, the lives of people with disabilities have been dramatically improved. Our built environment and transportation system have been made available to all people. It is now understood that every child, no matter their disability, has the right to a quality, public education. People with disabilities, rather than living in institutions, are now free to grow up and flourish in the community and setting of their choice. These opportunities may be taken for granted now, but they were hard fought gains achieved through the sweat and tears of the disability community and those who fought alongside them every step of the way. Dick Thornburgh was one of the greatest of these champions. His public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is worthy of commendation. We extend condolences to Dick's wife, Ginny, his sons, John, David, Peter and William, and to his grandchildren and great grandchildren. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS569-3 | null | 2,281 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to the late Richard L. Thornburgh, a former Pennsylvania Governor and former U.S. Attorney General. Dick Thornburgh was also a hero to the disability community for his longstanding advocacy for the rights and self-determination of people with disabilities. Born in Pittsburgh on July 16, 1932, Dick received an undergraduate degree from Yale University and a law degree from the University of Pittsburgh Law School before going into private practice. In 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Dick as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and in 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed him to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Criminal Division. Two years later, he returned to Pennsylvania. In 1978, Dick was elected Governor of Pennsylvania and was reelected in 1982, becoming the first Republican to serve two successive terms as Governor of the Commonwealth. During his time in office, Governor Thornburgh provided a steady hand and a calm demeanor. Most notably, he led Pennsylvania through the Three Mile Island crisis, America's worst nuclear meltdown. He took charge of the crisis and in so doing won praise from President Jimmy Carter and from Pennsylvanians for how he handled the potential disaster. At the time of the Three Mile Island Crisis, Governor Thornburgh said: You have to reassure people. You have to go before the cameras and microphones and tell them what you know and what you don't. You have to stop the rumors and, of course, you have to make decisions. There isn't any Republican or Democratic way to deal with a nuclear crisis. Nobody has ever had to deal with this kind of accident before. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan nominated Governor Thornburgh to be the U.S. Attorney General, a position in which he served until 1991. He resigned in 1991 to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania following the tragic death of Senator John Heinz in a plane crash. Governor Thornburgh lost the Senate election to Harris Wofford, who had been appointed to the vacancy 6 months before the 1991 election. Following his Senate run, Governor Thornburgh served a 1-year appointment as Under-Secretary General at the United Nations at the request of President George H.W. Bush. In that role, he sought to bring reform, transparency, and accountability to the United Nations. After his service at the United Nations, Governor Thornburgh returned to private practice but would continue to serve in advisory roles at the State and Federal level, imparting his wisdom and experience in a number of different arenas. Of his many contributions to public life, Governor Thornburgh was especially respected in the disability rights community for his tireless advocacy for the rights and self-determination of people with disabilities. Governor Thornburgh's son, Peter, was injured in a car accident in 1960, a tragic accident that also killed Thornburgh's wife, Ginny Hooton. The accident left Peter Thornburgh, then just 4 months of age, with a significant brain injury that caused physical and intellectual disabilities. Governor Thornburgh is quoted as saying that the accident ``made him think about what he could do with his life to contribute to the world.'' As Attorney General in Bush Administration, Dick Thornburgh helped to shepherd the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, through Congress during a most critical period in 1989. OnJune 21, 1989, then Attorney General Thornburgh affirmed to the disability community and the Nation the Bush administration's intent to support the passage of the ADA and to sign the legislation when Congress passed the bill. When the ADA passed Congress, Attorney General Thornburgh said that the day was ``one of emancipation, not just for the millions of Americans with disabilities who will directly benefit from this Act, but even more so for the rest of us now free to benefit from the contributions which those with a disability can make to our economy, our communities and our own well-being.'' Walter Cohen, who served as both Pennsylvania's secretary of public welfare and attorney general, stated that Governor Thornburgh was responsible for Pennsylvania creating home and community based services for people with disabilities and for ordering the closure of the Pennhurst State School and Hospital, which had been found to be housing hundreds of people with developmental and intellectual disabilities in squalor. Mr. President, for many Governor Thornburgh is known for his decades of public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to the Federal Government. He is deserving of this recognition, and the people of Pennsylvania owe him their deepest gratitude for his service. But any discussion of Governor Thornburgh's service would be incomplete if we did not pause to note that because of his efforts, in part, the lives of people with disabilities have been dramatically improved. Our built environment and transportation system have been made available to all people. It is now understood that every child, no matter their disability, has the right to a quality, public education. People with disabilities, rather than living in institutions, are now free to grow up and flourish in the community and setting of their choice. These opportunities may be taken for granted now, but they were hard fought gains achieved through the sweat and tears of the disability community and those who fought alongside them every step of the way. Dick Thornburgh was one of the greatest of these champions. His public service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is worthy of commendation. We extend condolences to Dick's wife, Ginny, his sons, John, David, Peter and William, and to his grandchildren and great grandchildren. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS569-3 | null | 2,282 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, when Jane Harman left Congress in 2011 to head the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, she described herself as dedicated to the belief that the political center is where most Americans are and where the best policy answers are found. As this great leader and my dear friend steps down from the Wilson Center, I take this opportunity to thank her for unswerving devotion to that principle. Our friendship was forged in the challenging days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Reaching across the aisle, we worked closely together as leaders of the Homeland Security committees in the House and Senate. From the landmark intelligence reform legislation we crafted, to addressing protections for our Nation's cargo ports and other critical infrastructure, to improving emergency preparedness in communities throughout America, Jane was always an informed, effective, and committed partner. I will never forget how, when Jane testified at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on maritime security in 2006, she called me her ``Security Sister.'' It is a title that fills my heart with pride and affection. Jane's untiring work to protect our Nation defines her public service. Elected nine times by the people of California's 36th Congressional District, she served on all major security committees--Homeland Security, Intelligence, and Armed Services. She served as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee's Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security and chaired the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment. After Jane left Congress, she served as a member of the Director of National Intelligence's Senior Advisory Group. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission and the Advisory Board of the Munich Security Conference. She also cochairs the Homeland Security Experts Group and is a member of the Presidential Debates Commission and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Jane has been recognized as a national expert at the nexus of security and public policy issues with the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service, the CIA Agency Seal Medal and Director's Award, and the Director of National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal. The University of Southern California's Presidential Medallion, its highest award, is a fitting tribute to her outstanding service to her State and to our Nation. Jane is the first woman to lead the Wilson Center. Chartered by Congress in 1968, the center is the Nation's key nonpartisan policy forum for tackling global issues through independent research and open dialogue. Under her leadership, the center advanced its mission to generate actionable ideas for policies that affect our security and our relations with the world. No tribute to Jane would be complete without mention of her late husband, Sidney. Driven by a shared ideal of public service, they accomplished so much in politics, business, philanthropy, and the arts. I thank Jane Harman--my colleague, my friend, my ``sister''--for all that she has done for our country. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS570-2 | null | 2,283 |
formal | Trilateral Commission | null | antisemitic | Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, when Jane Harman left Congress in 2011 to head the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, she described herself as dedicated to the belief that the political center is where most Americans are and where the best policy answers are found. As this great leader and my dear friend steps down from the Wilson Center, I take this opportunity to thank her for unswerving devotion to that principle. Our friendship was forged in the challenging days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Reaching across the aisle, we worked closely together as leaders of the Homeland Security committees in the House and Senate. From the landmark intelligence reform legislation we crafted, to addressing protections for our Nation's cargo ports and other critical infrastructure, to improving emergency preparedness in communities throughout America, Jane was always an informed, effective, and committed partner. I will never forget how, when Jane testified at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on maritime security in 2006, she called me her ``Security Sister.'' It is a title that fills my heart with pride and affection. Jane's untiring work to protect our Nation defines her public service. Elected nine times by the people of California's 36th Congressional District, she served on all major security committees--Homeland Security, Intelligence, and Armed Services. She served as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee's Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security and chaired the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment. After Jane left Congress, she served as a member of the Director of National Intelligence's Senior Advisory Group. She currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission and the Advisory Board of the Munich Security Conference. She also cochairs the Homeland Security Experts Group and is a member of the Presidential Debates Commission and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Jane has been recognized as a national expert at the nexus of security and public policy issues with the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service, the CIA Agency Seal Medal and Director's Award, and the Director of National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal. The University of Southern California's Presidential Medallion, its highest award, is a fitting tribute to her outstanding service to her State and to our Nation. Jane is the first woman to lead the Wilson Center. Chartered by Congress in 1968, the center is the Nation's key nonpartisan policy forum for tackling global issues through independent research and open dialogue. Under her leadership, the center advanced its mission to generate actionable ideas for policies that affect our security and our relations with the world. No tribute to Jane would be complete without mention of her late husband, Sidney. Driven by a shared ideal of public service, they accomplished so much in politics, business, philanthropy, and the arts. I thank Jane Harman--my colleague, my friend, my ``sister''--for all that she has done for our country. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS570-2 | null | 2,284 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I rise today in celebration of the George Washington University's bicentennial. As a proud alumna of this great institution of higher education, I would like to recognize the GW's achievement in reaching this historic milestone. Founded as a modest Columbian College 200 years ago, there was no guarantee that the George Washington University would succeed. Ultimately, it was the dedication, ingenuity, and hard work of many generations of world-class faculty, impressive students, and accomplished alumni over the past two centuries that accounts for why GW evolved into the preeminent, global research university it is today. Aspiring citizen-leaders worldwide attend the George Washington University precisely because of the opportunities GW provides its students to not only learn inside the classroom from leading thinkers and researchers, but to grow by applying this academic knowledge outside the classroom in a wide-range of settings throughout our Nation's Capital. In fact, the George Washington University's vast network of world-class academic opportunities, partnerships, and policy-research initiatives is not only responsible for educating our future leaders, but also for advancing technological innovation, driving improvements in public health and policy, and developing a greater understanding of both our world and humanity in ways that have made an impact on millions of lives. At this moment, GW faculty are conducting pioneering research to fight global poverty, HIV/AIDS, cancer, climate change, terrorism and many other urgent challenges. Many of GW's researchers, doctors, and public health officials have been at the forefront in responding to the deadly Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. As the George Washington University celebrates its bicentennial, it is a good time to reflect on the incredible legacy established by thousands of distinguished GW alumni. Graduates include current and former heads of state from around the world, scores of dedicated public servants, and leading experts that have accumulated a vast record of accomplishments across many academic fields. Last, but certainly not least, and a point of great personal appreciation for this GW alum, is GW's longstanding commitment to U.S. servicemembers, veterans, and military families. Indeed, the very first recipient of the original Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944--more commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights--was Donald Balfour, a GW student. Today, GW is consistently recognized as one of our Nation's best institutions of higher education for veterans and military-affiliated students because it recognizes the invaluable leadership experience and unique perspectives these men and women bring to the classroom. As GW enters its third century, I look forward to watching as the George Washington University builds on its 200-year legacy of academic excellence and ground-breaking research by attracting, educating, and inspiring future generations of leaders who will make a positive impact on the world. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. DUCKWORTH | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS571 | null | 2,285 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today, Amazon workers in Alabama will begin receiving ballots that will give them, finally, a real voice in their workplace by choosing to join a union. Amazon would not be the massively successful company that it is and Jeff Bezos wouldn't be a multibillionaire without the hard work and the dedication of its hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers. They have put in long hours and risked their own health during this pandemic to meet the increased demand that we all know. As of October, 20,000--think of this--20,000 Amazon workers, 20,000 workers at one company, Amazon, had contracted COVID-19. That is as of October. We know those numbers would be much higher today. Because of their hard work, Amazon's profits have soared by more than 70 percent. The company's workers deserve to share in the success that they made possible. Amazon claims to recognize the value of its workers. They call their workers ``heroes fighting for their communities and helping people get critical items they need.'' Heroes, they call them. If the company truly believed and appreciated that they were heroes, Amazon might back up its words with action. That means letting these workers organize. It means stopping the corporate union-busting tactics that they have deployed against these workers. Amazon, one of most powerful corporations in the world, unleashed all of that power to fight their own workers who are just asking for a voice on the job. They have harassed employees with anti-union propaganda, misleading text messages, websites, and fliers. One Washington Post headline really said it all: ``Amazon's anti-union blitz stalks Alabama warehouse workers everywhere, even the bathroom.'' Workers have reported they don't get enough time for bathroom breaks in the warehouse. That is how intense the company's pressure is. When they are able to use the restroom, even there, workers are hit with anti-union propaganda fliers on the stall doors. Amazon has repeatedly tried to block mail-in voting and force workers to hold the union election in person, putting its workers--remember, 20,000 already have been diagnosed back in October--putting its workers' health at even more risk, just to suppress the vote. It is all part of a pattern for Amazon. In 2019, Amazon fired a Staten Island warehouse worker who called for unionization. They monitor employees' online communications. Last fall, we learned the company planned to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on new software to monitor, their words, ``threats'' like unions. It is little wonder Amazon is afraid of workers getting more power. So much of their business model is built on top of exploiting workers, often Black and Brown workers and women. Instead of employing many drivers directly, they use what they call Amazon Flex drivers. Just like with other gig economy jobs, ``Flex'' is corporate PR speak for denying workers their rights as full employees. They have failed to provide complete data on COVID-19 spread in the workplace, so we really can't find out whether the company is protecting its workers' health. Amazon rolled back its tiny $2-per-hour pandemic raise in June. It announced a $2-an-hour bonus pandemic raise with great fanfare many months ago. Then they rolled it back in June, and then they announced a one-time bonus of $300 per worker, not $3,000 per worker, $300 a worker from a company that brought in $200 billion in revenue the previous year. I am sorry, $280 billion--280,000 million--$280 billion in revenue; they gave workers a bonus of $300. And Amazon is not alone. The Washington Post looked at the 50 biggest corporations and found that between April and September, these companies handed out more than $240 billion to their stockholders through stock buybacks and dividends. Companies like that are making more and more and more money. They are giving it back to executives and stockholders in huge dividends and stock buybacks. Yet their workers are exposed to these health hazards at work, exposed to this virus. They come home always anxious and scared about infecting their families. The workers risk their own health, often at rockbottom wages, to make those companies so profitable. If even a global pandemic, where America's workers have been on the frontline, if even that will not get corporations to rethink their business model that treats workers as expendable, then we have to give workers more power on the job. A grocery store worker said: You know, they say--told me, they say I am essential, but, really, I feel expendable because they don't pay me much, and they don't protect me on the job. PRO Act Mr. President, so what do we do? It should mean collective bargaining. It should mean unions. It is why I joined Senator Murray and many of my colleagues last week to reintroduce the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act. It is a comprehensive overhaul of our labor laws to protect workers' right to stand together and bargain for fair wages, fair benefits, safer workplaces. We know corporations have attacked and undermined worker protections for decades, made it harder and harder for workers even to stand a chance in organizing a union when they choose to. And look what has happened to our economy, as corporations take away workers' power: Productivity goes up, corporate profits soar, executive compensation explodes through the roof, but wages stay flat, and the middle class shrinks Just go over that again. Corporate profits, workers' productivity goes up. Workers are working harder and more efficiently. Productivity goes up, corporate profits soar, executive compensation explodes, but wages stay flat, and the middle class shrinks. Our bill would work to level the playing field, finally give workers a fighting chance against corporate union-busting tactics like we see right now today, last week, the week before, and today at Amazon. It would strengthen the punishment against companies that violate workers' rights to organize and the companies that retaliate against union organizers. It would restore to an economy rigged against workers by closing loopholes that allow employers to misclassify their employees as supervisors and independent contractors so they don't have to live under labor law. We can't in this country, whether it is in Las Cruces or in Dayton--we can't have a strong, growing middle class without strong unions. Union members earn 19 percent more, on the average, than similar workers in nonunion jobs. They have better healthcare. They are better able tosave for retirement. They have more predictable hours--talk to the Amazon workers about their hours--and they have more control over their schedules and more economic security. At a time when this pandemic reveals so much about inequality in our society, it is more vital than ever that we empower all workers. It is not a coincidence that so many of the workers, at corporations like Amazon, whom they exploit are workers of color. It is true at the Amazon Alabama facility. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, organizing in Alabama, has made respect and dignity central to its campaign. It comes back to the dignity of work. Remember what Dr. King said. He said: No labor is really menial unless you're not getting adequate wages. The president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Stuart Appelbaum, said: We see this as much as a civil rights struggle as a labor struggle. We know where Dr. King was assassinated and what he was doing. He was fighting for civil rights. He was fighting for worker rights, fighting for sanitation workers in Memphis, some of the most exploited workers in America. A union card is a ticket to the middle class, and we fight for economic justice by making it available to all workers. We just need corporations just to get out of the way, let workers organize, let workers take control over their careers and their futures. When you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work, whether it is in New Mexico or Ohio or all over this country. That is what the Amazon workers in Alabama are doing. It is what unions have done throughout our history in this country. It is what we can do in the Senate by passing the PRO Act. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS583-2 | null | 2,286 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today, Amazon workers in Alabama will begin receiving ballots that will give them, finally, a real voice in their workplace by choosing to join a union. Amazon would not be the massively successful company that it is and Jeff Bezos wouldn't be a multibillionaire without the hard work and the dedication of its hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers. They have put in long hours and risked their own health during this pandemic to meet the increased demand that we all know. As of October, 20,000--think of this--20,000 Amazon workers, 20,000 workers at one company, Amazon, had contracted COVID-19. That is as of October. We know those numbers would be much higher today. Because of their hard work, Amazon's profits have soared by more than 70 percent. The company's workers deserve to share in the success that they made possible. Amazon claims to recognize the value of its workers. They call their workers ``heroes fighting for their communities and helping people get critical items they need.'' Heroes, they call them. If the company truly believed and appreciated that they were heroes, Amazon might back up its words with action. That means letting these workers organize. It means stopping the corporate union-busting tactics that they have deployed against these workers. Amazon, one of most powerful corporations in the world, unleashed all of that power to fight their own workers who are just asking for a voice on the job. They have harassed employees with anti-union propaganda, misleading text messages, websites, and fliers. One Washington Post headline really said it all: ``Amazon's anti-union blitz stalks Alabama warehouse workers everywhere, even the bathroom.'' Workers have reported they don't get enough time for bathroom breaks in the warehouse. That is how intense the company's pressure is. When they are able to use the restroom, even there, workers are hit with anti-union propaganda fliers on the stall doors. Amazon has repeatedly tried to block mail-in voting and force workers to hold the union election in person, putting its workers--remember, 20,000 already have been diagnosed back in October--putting its workers' health at even more risk, just to suppress the vote. It is all part of a pattern for Amazon. In 2019, Amazon fired a Staten Island warehouse worker who called for unionization. They monitor employees' online communications. Last fall, we learned the company planned to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on new software to monitor, their words, ``threats'' like unions. It is little wonder Amazon is afraid of workers getting more power. So much of their business model is built on top of exploiting workers, often Black and Brown workers and women. Instead of employing many drivers directly, they use what they call Amazon Flex drivers. Just like with other gig economy jobs, ``Flex'' is corporate PR speak for denying workers their rights as full employees. They have failed to provide complete data on COVID-19 spread in the workplace, so we really can't find out whether the company is protecting its workers' health. Amazon rolled back its tiny $2-per-hour pandemic raise in June. It announced a $2-an-hour bonus pandemic raise with great fanfare many months ago. Then they rolled it back in June, and then they announced a one-time bonus of $300 per worker, not $3,000 per worker, $300 a worker from a company that brought in $200 billion in revenue the previous year. I am sorry, $280 billion--280,000 million--$280 billion in revenue; they gave workers a bonus of $300. And Amazon is not alone. The Washington Post looked at the 50 biggest corporations and found that between April and September, these companies handed out more than $240 billion to their stockholders through stock buybacks and dividends. Companies like that are making more and more and more money. They are giving it back to executives and stockholders in huge dividends and stock buybacks. Yet their workers are exposed to these health hazards at work, exposed to this virus. They come home always anxious and scared about infecting their families. The workers risk their own health, often at rockbottom wages, to make those companies so profitable. If even a global pandemic, where America's workers have been on the frontline, if even that will not get corporations to rethink their business model that treats workers as expendable, then we have to give workers more power on the job. A grocery store worker said: You know, they say--told me, they say I am essential, but, really, I feel expendable because they don't pay me much, and they don't protect me on the job. PRO Act Mr. President, so what do we do? It should mean collective bargaining. It should mean unions. It is why I joined Senator Murray and many of my colleagues last week to reintroduce the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act. It is a comprehensive overhaul of our labor laws to protect workers' right to stand together and bargain for fair wages, fair benefits, safer workplaces. We know corporations have attacked and undermined worker protections for decades, made it harder and harder for workers even to stand a chance in organizing a union when they choose to. And look what has happened to our economy, as corporations take away workers' power: Productivity goes up, corporate profits soar, executive compensation explodes through the roof, but wages stay flat, and the middle class shrinks Just go over that again. Corporate profits, workers' productivity goes up. Workers are working harder and more efficiently. Productivity goes up, corporate profits soar, executive compensation explodes, but wages stay flat, and the middle class shrinks. Our bill would work to level the playing field, finally give workers a fighting chance against corporate union-busting tactics like we see right now today, last week, the week before, and today at Amazon. It would strengthen the punishment against companies that violate workers' rights to organize and the companies that retaliate against union organizers. It would restore to an economy rigged against workers by closing loopholes that allow employers to misclassify their employees as supervisors and independent contractors so they don't have to live under labor law. We can't in this country, whether it is in Las Cruces or in Dayton--we can't have a strong, growing middle class without strong unions. Union members earn 19 percent more, on the average, than similar workers in nonunion jobs. They have better healthcare. They are better able tosave for retirement. They have more predictable hours--talk to the Amazon workers about their hours--and they have more control over their schedules and more economic security. At a time when this pandemic reveals so much about inequality in our society, it is more vital than ever that we empower all workers. It is not a coincidence that so many of the workers, at corporations like Amazon, whom they exploit are workers of color. It is true at the Amazon Alabama facility. The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, organizing in Alabama, has made respect and dignity central to its campaign. It comes back to the dignity of work. Remember what Dr. King said. He said: No labor is really menial unless you're not getting adequate wages. The president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Stuart Appelbaum, said: We see this as much as a civil rights struggle as a labor struggle. We know where Dr. King was assassinated and what he was doing. He was fighting for civil rights. He was fighting for worker rights, fighting for sanitation workers in Memphis, some of the most exploited workers in America. A union card is a ticket to the middle class, and we fight for economic justice by making it available to all workers. We just need corporations just to get out of the way, let workers organize, let workers take control over their careers and their futures. When you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work, whether it is in New Mexico or Ohio or all over this country. That is what the Amazon workers in Alabama are doing. It is what unions have done throughout our history in this country. It is what we can do in the Senate by passing the PRO Act. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS583-2 | null | 2,287 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was just noting that the Senate Chamber has been rearranged because tomorrow we commence the impeachment trial, the second impeachment of Donald Trump. In the center of the well is a podium and microphone where the attorneys representing the House managers who voted the impeachment resolution will stand to make their case a few hours after we commence the trial. The President's defenders will have the same opportunity. They will be standing in a spot that is literally 4 or 5 feet away from a location still fresh in my mind. It was there right in the center of the aisle between the majority and minority leader of the Senate, on January 6, when two men appeared whom I had never seen before in plain clothes and stood in the center of the well holding automatic weapons. It was just minutes after the Vice President had been removed from the chair where you are sitting, whisked off the floor of the Senate by the Secret Service, I imagine. He was pulled off the floor. It wasn't a ``follow me, Mr. Vice President''; they pulled him off the floor. That was at 2:15. Within a few minutes, the mob which had invaded the U.S. Capitol was on the march, on its way toward this Chamber where most of us were sitting, having dealt with our constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes. I remember when they interrupted the quorum call that they were conducting for one of the Capitol policemen to stand before us and say: Everyone stay in your seats. We are going to bring all the staffers. They are going to line the walls. We are going to lock all the doors. This will be the safe room in the Capitol. It couldn't have been more than 10 or 15 minutes later when the same policeman said: Everybody out now. The mob had come through the Capitol, through the Rotunda, and was now on the Senate side of the building within easy reach of 100 Senators. So we filed out the back door and down a staircase, over to the tunnels, and down to the Hart Building, hoping to escape them. I watched through the window as I went down the steps and saw all the flags coming up toward the Capitol--American flags, Trump flags, flags I didn't recognize--all the people coming up here. We know what happened later that same day. The mob crashed through the doors into this Chamber, posed for pictures at our desks, and scrawled messages to us, went through our desks and looked at them, literally interrupted the business of the U.S. Senate counting all the electoral votes. Was that just an accident, that thousands of people were in Washington on January 6? Was that just an accident, that they gathered at the Ellipse for the President of the United States, Donald Trump, to speak to them? Was it just an accident that within 40 minutes or 45 minutes after the President sent them off to the Capitol, they were here breaking windows and breaking down doors to come inside? No, it was by design. We are now learning who designed that strategy and that attack on the Capitol, and tomorrow we are going to start a trial to determine whether the former President of the United States of America bears responsibility for inciting that mob or inspiring that insurrection. When you read the history of the writing of the Constitution, it is almost impossible--maybe it is impossible to put yourself in the moment. These men, all men, gathered in Philadelphia. They had just fought a bloody, long war, a Revolutionary War against one of the most powerful nations in the world, and they were setting up a government on this side of the ocean with the hopes that it would survive. And they were worried. They were worried about the enemy from without and the enemy from within. They talked about our responsibility to maintain this democracy and the challenges we might face. At the time, they were wary because of what they lived through. As we read about it now, we wonder, what was the concern? What was behind all that concern? If you are honest, you know that in 1861, our Nation went to war with itself in a Civil War with over half a million lives lost. So it was a fragile democracy, as they thought. But we never dreamed--at least, I never dreamed that in the 21st century, there would be a concern over an insurrection to overthrow the Government of the United States with violence. No, not in America. Not in 2021. That is exactly what happened on January 6. That is why we will be meeting tomorrow for the accountability of Donald Trump for that event. Now, there are people who have told us we should get over it. Get over it. He is gone. Why do you keep talking about Donald Trump? Let him ride off into the sunset, as one fellow shouted at me at the airport a few weeks ago. Why would you want to keep reminding us of our differences in visions Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious. We can't reach real unity in America until we deal with the reality of America as Donald Trump left it, and January 6 was a classic illustration. There is one other image I share in my thinking about this trial when I hear former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, the former Governor of South Carolina, say ``Get over it'' to the Democrats. I think of that solemn scene in the Capitol Rotunda last week as we honored Capitol Hill Policeman Brian Sicknick, who was murdered by that mob--murdered by that mob. I spoke to his mom and dad afterwards. He always wanted to be a police officer. He served in the Air Force, but he wanted to be a police officer. His mom said: ``We thought of all places for him to be a police officer, the safest had to be the United States Capitol building.'' And she lost her son to that murderous mob. I can't get over that. I am sure his family will never get over it. If we can't give an honest answer to the American people for what happened and who was responsible for it, shame on us. America came close to losing this democracy on January 6. This President'sdesign was to make sure an election didn't count, that November 3 was ignored. What happened on January 6 was an attempted coup, make no mistake. As others have pointed out, an attempted coup that is not punished is a trial run for the next time. Over the 4 years of his Presidency, someone decided to take account of the many times that the President lied to the American people. They were in the thousands. Many of his lies were an attempt to discredit anyone or any institution that stood in his way. It is an old trick straight out of the authoritarian handbook: Tell so many lies that people can no longer tell fact from fiction. His last and most damaging lie was, over and over he repeated to the American people: They stole the election. They rigged the election. Donald Trump's apologists will come to the floor of the Senate in the next few days and say that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted, whether it was the truth or not. But no one, not even the President, has a First Amendment right to incite an insurrection against this government. That is not a right; it is a crime, a high crime. When he first ran for President in 2016, Donald Trump said the only way he could lose is if the election were stolen. Four years later, he tweeted the lie of a stolen election so many times at his rallies. When he lost, he tried to convince the courts. He went to 60 different courts pleading that the election had been rigged and stolen. They laughed him out of the court every time. He tried to bully officials in swing States and members of his own administration. On January 2, as Americans were dying of COVID-19, Donald Trump was on the telephone to the Republican secretary of state of the State of Georgia, spending more than an hour pleading and threatening him to somehow ``find the votes'' to overturn that State's votes in the Presidential election. Trump failed. The Republican secretary of state refused his request. He was not intimidated by his threats and had the foresight to tape record the conversation so there could be no denial. For weeks before January 6, Donald Trump exhorted his followers to come to Washington on the day that Congress would assemble to certify State electoral votes. He knew that his extremist followers were waiting for their signals and their orders. Over the summer, when armed extremists stormed and occupied State capitals, demanding an end to COVID safety instructions, Donald Trump cheered them on. On January 6, he whipped them into a frenzy just a few short moments from here. He spoke for more than an hour at that rally at the Ellipse. This is some of what he said--and I quote Donald Trump--to the mob on its way to the Capitol. ``We will never give up,'' he said. ``We will never concede. It doesn't happen.'' Then he said, ``We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.'' Then he spoke of his Vice President, and he said, ``I hope Mike is doing the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. . . . All [the Vice President] has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.'' Then he said, ``We have to fight like hell,'' Donald Trump said to that crowd before they made it up to the Capitol. ``If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,'' Donald Trump said. ``Our boldest endeavors have not yet begun. . . . We're going to the Capitol. We're going to try and give [the Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.'' Donald Trump wasn't shocked at what happened next. The crowd followed orders. He was excited. According to reports, he ignored police pleas from the White House, who begged him--people around him begged him to do something to calm the mob before they got to the Capitol. At 2:11 p.m., the mob smashed through the doors and windows and began pouring into this building. Thirteen minutes later, while the mob chanted ``Hang Mike Pence,'' Donald Trump tweeted ``Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country . . . giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts . . . USA demands the truth!'' At 6:01 p.m., Donald Trump again tweeted to the mob 4 hours after they had broken into this building. Here is what he said: ``These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace.'' And he closed, ``Remember this day forever!'' I will. And those of us in this building at the moment will. Brian Sicknick's family will. Now nearly all of our Republican colleagues tell us it is time to move on. Forget about it. Forget the authoritarian President and his contempt for democracy that summoned this mob. Forget the failed coup without accountability. Just move on. Polls show that the majority of Republican voters in America believe Donald Trump's lie. They still believe him, even after it has been rejected by local and State election officials of both parties. That is why the Senate is proceeding to the second impeachment trial tomorrow. Donald Trump is gone from elected office, but the poison he injected into the national bloodstream remains, and it grows even more toxic. On the inauguration of President Joe Biden, it was different from any I have seen, and it was the tenth one that I witnessed. The crowd was contained in a very small garden area. There were many more National Guardsmen in the streets of Washington as he was sworn in on January 20 than the crowd that assembled on the Mall. I used to go to Central America and visited countries like El Salvador. I can remember being at the capitol of El Salvador. I was struck, at the time, by soldiers standing on the street corners with automatic weapons, and I thought: What kind of country can this be that soldiers will stand up just like a normal cop on the beat with automatic weapons? We have reached that point here in Washington. We have reached that point in the Senate Chamber. It is a reminder of the fragility and vulnerability of our democracy. There is a great cost to what we have just been through, and we continue to incur it to keep the people in this Capitol safe and those who visit. But there is a deeper cost. Brian Sicknick is part of the cost of January 6. He was proud to protect this Capitol. He gave his life for doing it. Last Wednesday, Officer Sicknick's ashes were carried in a wooden box into the Rotunda of the Capitol, where we honored him. The silence of his return was made more painful by remembering how an angry mob had desecrated this building that he loved. Brian Sicknick paid for that hushed peace with his life. He is one of a long line of patriots who have given their lives over more than 240 years to protect this country. For his sake, for all of those wounded on January 6, and for the safety of our democracy, we have to put an end to Donald Trump's big lie, once and for all, and look honestly at the culpability of the man who incited this mob to attack Congress, to attack the Constitution, and to attack our way of life. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS585 | null | 2,288 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was just noting that the Senate Chamber has been rearranged because tomorrow we commence the impeachment trial, the second impeachment of Donald Trump. In the center of the well is a podium and microphone where the attorneys representing the House managers who voted the impeachment resolution will stand to make their case a few hours after we commence the trial. The President's defenders will have the same opportunity. They will be standing in a spot that is literally 4 or 5 feet away from a location still fresh in my mind. It was there right in the center of the aisle between the majority and minority leader of the Senate, on January 6, when two men appeared whom I had never seen before in plain clothes and stood in the center of the well holding automatic weapons. It was just minutes after the Vice President had been removed from the chair where you are sitting, whisked off the floor of the Senate by the Secret Service, I imagine. He was pulled off the floor. It wasn't a ``follow me, Mr. Vice President''; they pulled him off the floor. That was at 2:15. Within a few minutes, the mob which had invaded the U.S. Capitol was on the march, on its way toward this Chamber where most of us were sitting, having dealt with our constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes. I remember when they interrupted the quorum call that they were conducting for one of the Capitol policemen to stand before us and say: Everyone stay in your seats. We are going to bring all the staffers. They are going to line the walls. We are going to lock all the doors. This will be the safe room in the Capitol. It couldn't have been more than 10 or 15 minutes later when the same policeman said: Everybody out now. The mob had come through the Capitol, through the Rotunda, and was now on the Senate side of the building within easy reach of 100 Senators. So we filed out the back door and down a staircase, over to the tunnels, and down to the Hart Building, hoping to escape them. I watched through the window as I went down the steps and saw all the flags coming up toward the Capitol--American flags, Trump flags, flags I didn't recognize--all the people coming up here. We know what happened later that same day. The mob crashed through the doors into this Chamber, posed for pictures at our desks, and scrawled messages to us, went through our desks and looked at them, literally interrupted the business of the U.S. Senate counting all the electoral votes. Was that just an accident, that thousands of people were in Washington on January 6? Was that just an accident, that they gathered at the Ellipse for the President of the United States, Donald Trump, to speak to them? Was it just an accident that within 40 minutes or 45 minutes after the President sent them off to the Capitol, they were here breaking windows and breaking down doors to come inside? No, it was by design. We are now learning who designed that strategy and that attack on the Capitol, and tomorrow we are going to start a trial to determine whether the former President of the United States of America bears responsibility for inciting that mob or inspiring that insurrection. When you read the history of the writing of the Constitution, it is almost impossible--maybe it is impossible to put yourself in the moment. These men, all men, gathered in Philadelphia. They had just fought a bloody, long war, a Revolutionary War against one of the most powerful nations in the world, and they were setting up a government on this side of the ocean with the hopes that it would survive. And they were worried. They were worried about the enemy from without and the enemy from within. They talked about our responsibility to maintain this democracy and the challenges we might face. At the time, they were wary because of what they lived through. As we read about it now, we wonder, what was the concern? What was behind all that concern? If you are honest, you know that in 1861, our Nation went to war with itself in a Civil War with over half a million lives lost. So it was a fragile democracy, as they thought. But we never dreamed--at least, I never dreamed that in the 21st century, there would be a concern over an insurrection to overthrow the Government of the United States with violence. No, not in America. Not in 2021. That is exactly what happened on January 6. That is why we will be meeting tomorrow for the accountability of Donald Trump for that event. Now, there are people who have told us we should get over it. Get over it. He is gone. Why do you keep talking about Donald Trump? Let him ride off into the sunset, as one fellow shouted at me at the airport a few weeks ago. Why would you want to keep reminding us of our differences in visions Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious. We can't reach real unity in America until we deal with the reality of America as Donald Trump left it, and January 6 was a classic illustration. There is one other image I share in my thinking about this trial when I hear former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, the former Governor of South Carolina, say ``Get over it'' to the Democrats. I think of that solemn scene in the Capitol Rotunda last week as we honored Capitol Hill Policeman Brian Sicknick, who was murdered by that mob--murdered by that mob. I spoke to his mom and dad afterwards. He always wanted to be a police officer. He served in the Air Force, but he wanted to be a police officer. His mom said: ``We thought of all places for him to be a police officer, the safest had to be the United States Capitol building.'' And she lost her son to that murderous mob. I can't get over that. I am sure his family will never get over it. If we can't give an honest answer to the American people for what happened and who was responsible for it, shame on us. America came close to losing this democracy on January 6. This President'sdesign was to make sure an election didn't count, that November 3 was ignored. What happened on January 6 was an attempted coup, make no mistake. As others have pointed out, an attempted coup that is not punished is a trial run for the next time. Over the 4 years of his Presidency, someone decided to take account of the many times that the President lied to the American people. They were in the thousands. Many of his lies were an attempt to discredit anyone or any institution that stood in his way. It is an old trick straight out of the authoritarian handbook: Tell so many lies that people can no longer tell fact from fiction. His last and most damaging lie was, over and over he repeated to the American people: They stole the election. They rigged the election. Donald Trump's apologists will come to the floor of the Senate in the next few days and say that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted, whether it was the truth or not. But no one, not even the President, has a First Amendment right to incite an insurrection against this government. That is not a right; it is a crime, a high crime. When he first ran for President in 2016, Donald Trump said the only way he could lose is if the election were stolen. Four years later, he tweeted the lie of a stolen election so many times at his rallies. When he lost, he tried to convince the courts. He went to 60 different courts pleading that the election had been rigged and stolen. They laughed him out of the court every time. He tried to bully officials in swing States and members of his own administration. On January 2, as Americans were dying of COVID-19, Donald Trump was on the telephone to the Republican secretary of state of the State of Georgia, spending more than an hour pleading and threatening him to somehow ``find the votes'' to overturn that State's votes in the Presidential election. Trump failed. The Republican secretary of state refused his request. He was not intimidated by his threats and had the foresight to tape record the conversation so there could be no denial. For weeks before January 6, Donald Trump exhorted his followers to come to Washington on the day that Congress would assemble to certify State electoral votes. He knew that his extremist followers were waiting for their signals and their orders. Over the summer, when armed extremists stormed and occupied State capitals, demanding an end to COVID safety instructions, Donald Trump cheered them on. On January 6, he whipped them into a frenzy just a few short moments from here. He spoke for more than an hour at that rally at the Ellipse. This is some of what he said--and I quote Donald Trump--to the mob on its way to the Capitol. ``We will never give up,'' he said. ``We will never concede. It doesn't happen.'' Then he said, ``We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.'' Then he spoke of his Vice President, and he said, ``I hope Mike is doing the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. . . . All [the Vice President] has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.'' Then he said, ``We have to fight like hell,'' Donald Trump said to that crowd before they made it up to the Capitol. ``If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,'' Donald Trump said. ``Our boldest endeavors have not yet begun. . . . We're going to the Capitol. We're going to try and give [the Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.'' Donald Trump wasn't shocked at what happened next. The crowd followed orders. He was excited. According to reports, he ignored police pleas from the White House, who begged him--people around him begged him to do something to calm the mob before they got to the Capitol. At 2:11 p.m., the mob smashed through the doors and windows and began pouring into this building. Thirteen minutes later, while the mob chanted ``Hang Mike Pence,'' Donald Trump tweeted ``Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country . . . giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts . . . USA demands the truth!'' At 6:01 p.m., Donald Trump again tweeted to the mob 4 hours after they had broken into this building. Here is what he said: ``These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace.'' And he closed, ``Remember this day forever!'' I will. And those of us in this building at the moment will. Brian Sicknick's family will. Now nearly all of our Republican colleagues tell us it is time to move on. Forget about it. Forget the authoritarian President and his contempt for democracy that summoned this mob. Forget the failed coup without accountability. Just move on. Polls show that the majority of Republican voters in America believe Donald Trump's lie. They still believe him, even after it has been rejected by local and State election officials of both parties. That is why the Senate is proceeding to the second impeachment trial tomorrow. Donald Trump is gone from elected office, but the poison he injected into the national bloodstream remains, and it grows even more toxic. On the inauguration of President Joe Biden, it was different from any I have seen, and it was the tenth one that I witnessed. The crowd was contained in a very small garden area. There were many more National Guardsmen in the streets of Washington as he was sworn in on January 20 than the crowd that assembled on the Mall. I used to go to Central America and visited countries like El Salvador. I can remember being at the capitol of El Salvador. I was struck, at the time, by soldiers standing on the street corners with automatic weapons, and I thought: What kind of country can this be that soldiers will stand up just like a normal cop on the beat with automatic weapons? We have reached that point here in Washington. We have reached that point in the Senate Chamber. It is a reminder of the fragility and vulnerability of our democracy. There is a great cost to what we have just been through, and we continue to incur it to keep the people in this Capitol safe and those who visit. But there is a deeper cost. Brian Sicknick is part of the cost of January 6. He was proud to protect this Capitol. He gave his life for doing it. Last Wednesday, Officer Sicknick's ashes were carried in a wooden box into the Rotunda of the Capitol, where we honored him. The silence of his return was made more painful by remembering how an angry mob had desecrated this building that he loved. Brian Sicknick paid for that hushed peace with his life. He is one of a long line of patriots who have given their lives over more than 240 years to protect this country. For his sake, for all of those wounded on January 6, and for the safety of our democracy, we have to put an end to Donald Trump's big lie, once and for all, and look honestly at the culpability of the man who incited this mob to attack Congress, to attack the Constitution, and to attack our way of life. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS585 | null | 2,289 |
formal | take back | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was just noting that the Senate Chamber has been rearranged because tomorrow we commence the impeachment trial, the second impeachment of Donald Trump. In the center of the well is a podium and microphone where the attorneys representing the House managers who voted the impeachment resolution will stand to make their case a few hours after we commence the trial. The President's defenders will have the same opportunity. They will be standing in a spot that is literally 4 or 5 feet away from a location still fresh in my mind. It was there right in the center of the aisle between the majority and minority leader of the Senate, on January 6, when two men appeared whom I had never seen before in plain clothes and stood in the center of the well holding automatic weapons. It was just minutes after the Vice President had been removed from the chair where you are sitting, whisked off the floor of the Senate by the Secret Service, I imagine. He was pulled off the floor. It wasn't a ``follow me, Mr. Vice President''; they pulled him off the floor. That was at 2:15. Within a few minutes, the mob which had invaded the U.S. Capitol was on the march, on its way toward this Chamber where most of us were sitting, having dealt with our constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes. I remember when they interrupted the quorum call that they were conducting for one of the Capitol policemen to stand before us and say: Everyone stay in your seats. We are going to bring all the staffers. They are going to line the walls. We are going to lock all the doors. This will be the safe room in the Capitol. It couldn't have been more than 10 or 15 minutes later when the same policeman said: Everybody out now. The mob had come through the Capitol, through the Rotunda, and was now on the Senate side of the building within easy reach of 100 Senators. So we filed out the back door and down a staircase, over to the tunnels, and down to the Hart Building, hoping to escape them. I watched through the window as I went down the steps and saw all the flags coming up toward the Capitol--American flags, Trump flags, flags I didn't recognize--all the people coming up here. We know what happened later that same day. The mob crashed through the doors into this Chamber, posed for pictures at our desks, and scrawled messages to us, went through our desks and looked at them, literally interrupted the business of the U.S. Senate counting all the electoral votes. Was that just an accident, that thousands of people were in Washington on January 6? Was that just an accident, that they gathered at the Ellipse for the President of the United States, Donald Trump, to speak to them? Was it just an accident that within 40 minutes or 45 minutes after the President sent them off to the Capitol, they were here breaking windows and breaking down doors to come inside? No, it was by design. We are now learning who designed that strategy and that attack on the Capitol, and tomorrow we are going to start a trial to determine whether the former President of the United States of America bears responsibility for inciting that mob or inspiring that insurrection. When you read the history of the writing of the Constitution, it is almost impossible--maybe it is impossible to put yourself in the moment. These men, all men, gathered in Philadelphia. They had just fought a bloody, long war, a Revolutionary War against one of the most powerful nations in the world, and they were setting up a government on this side of the ocean with the hopes that it would survive. And they were worried. They were worried about the enemy from without and the enemy from within. They talked about our responsibility to maintain this democracy and the challenges we might face. At the time, they were wary because of what they lived through. As we read about it now, we wonder, what was the concern? What was behind all that concern? If you are honest, you know that in 1861, our Nation went to war with itself in a Civil War with over half a million lives lost. So it was a fragile democracy, as they thought. But we never dreamed--at least, I never dreamed that in the 21st century, there would be a concern over an insurrection to overthrow the Government of the United States with violence. No, not in America. Not in 2021. That is exactly what happened on January 6. That is why we will be meeting tomorrow for the accountability of Donald Trump for that event. Now, there are people who have told us we should get over it. Get over it. He is gone. Why do you keep talking about Donald Trump? Let him ride off into the sunset, as one fellow shouted at me at the airport a few weeks ago. Why would you want to keep reminding us of our differences in visions Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious. We can't reach real unity in America until we deal with the reality of America as Donald Trump left it, and January 6 was a classic illustration. There is one other image I share in my thinking about this trial when I hear former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, the former Governor of South Carolina, say ``Get over it'' to the Democrats. I think of that solemn scene in the Capitol Rotunda last week as we honored Capitol Hill Policeman Brian Sicknick, who was murdered by that mob--murdered by that mob. I spoke to his mom and dad afterwards. He always wanted to be a police officer. He served in the Air Force, but he wanted to be a police officer. His mom said: ``We thought of all places for him to be a police officer, the safest had to be the United States Capitol building.'' And she lost her son to that murderous mob. I can't get over that. I am sure his family will never get over it. If we can't give an honest answer to the American people for what happened and who was responsible for it, shame on us. America came close to losing this democracy on January 6. This President'sdesign was to make sure an election didn't count, that November 3 was ignored. What happened on January 6 was an attempted coup, make no mistake. As others have pointed out, an attempted coup that is not punished is a trial run for the next time. Over the 4 years of his Presidency, someone decided to take account of the many times that the President lied to the American people. They were in the thousands. Many of his lies were an attempt to discredit anyone or any institution that stood in his way. It is an old trick straight out of the authoritarian handbook: Tell so many lies that people can no longer tell fact from fiction. His last and most damaging lie was, over and over he repeated to the American people: They stole the election. They rigged the election. Donald Trump's apologists will come to the floor of the Senate in the next few days and say that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted, whether it was the truth or not. But no one, not even the President, has a First Amendment right to incite an insurrection against this government. That is not a right; it is a crime, a high crime. When he first ran for President in 2016, Donald Trump said the only way he could lose is if the election were stolen. Four years later, he tweeted the lie of a stolen election so many times at his rallies. When he lost, he tried to convince the courts. He went to 60 different courts pleading that the election had been rigged and stolen. They laughed him out of the court every time. He tried to bully officials in swing States and members of his own administration. On January 2, as Americans were dying of COVID-19, Donald Trump was on the telephone to the Republican secretary of state of the State of Georgia, spending more than an hour pleading and threatening him to somehow ``find the votes'' to overturn that State's votes in the Presidential election. Trump failed. The Republican secretary of state refused his request. He was not intimidated by his threats and had the foresight to tape record the conversation so there could be no denial. For weeks before January 6, Donald Trump exhorted his followers to come to Washington on the day that Congress would assemble to certify State electoral votes. He knew that his extremist followers were waiting for their signals and their orders. Over the summer, when armed extremists stormed and occupied State capitals, demanding an end to COVID safety instructions, Donald Trump cheered them on. On January 6, he whipped them into a frenzy just a few short moments from here. He spoke for more than an hour at that rally at the Ellipse. This is some of what he said--and I quote Donald Trump--to the mob on its way to the Capitol. ``We will never give up,'' he said. ``We will never concede. It doesn't happen.'' Then he said, ``We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.'' Then he spoke of his Vice President, and he said, ``I hope Mike is doing the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. . . . All [the Vice President] has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.'' Then he said, ``We have to fight like hell,'' Donald Trump said to that crowd before they made it up to the Capitol. ``If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,'' Donald Trump said. ``Our boldest endeavors have not yet begun. . . . We're going to the Capitol. We're going to try and give [the Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.'' Donald Trump wasn't shocked at what happened next. The crowd followed orders. He was excited. According to reports, he ignored police pleas from the White House, who begged him--people around him begged him to do something to calm the mob before they got to the Capitol. At 2:11 p.m., the mob smashed through the doors and windows and began pouring into this building. Thirteen minutes later, while the mob chanted ``Hang Mike Pence,'' Donald Trump tweeted ``Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country . . . giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts . . . USA demands the truth!'' At 6:01 p.m., Donald Trump again tweeted to the mob 4 hours after they had broken into this building. Here is what he said: ``These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace.'' And he closed, ``Remember this day forever!'' I will. And those of us in this building at the moment will. Brian Sicknick's family will. Now nearly all of our Republican colleagues tell us it is time to move on. Forget about it. Forget the authoritarian President and his contempt for democracy that summoned this mob. Forget the failed coup without accountability. Just move on. Polls show that the majority of Republican voters in America believe Donald Trump's lie. They still believe him, even after it has been rejected by local and State election officials of both parties. That is why the Senate is proceeding to the second impeachment trial tomorrow. Donald Trump is gone from elected office, but the poison he injected into the national bloodstream remains, and it grows even more toxic. On the inauguration of President Joe Biden, it was different from any I have seen, and it was the tenth one that I witnessed. The crowd was contained in a very small garden area. There were many more National Guardsmen in the streets of Washington as he was sworn in on January 20 than the crowd that assembled on the Mall. I used to go to Central America and visited countries like El Salvador. I can remember being at the capitol of El Salvador. I was struck, at the time, by soldiers standing on the street corners with automatic weapons, and I thought: What kind of country can this be that soldiers will stand up just like a normal cop on the beat with automatic weapons? We have reached that point here in Washington. We have reached that point in the Senate Chamber. It is a reminder of the fragility and vulnerability of our democracy. There is a great cost to what we have just been through, and we continue to incur it to keep the people in this Capitol safe and those who visit. But there is a deeper cost. Brian Sicknick is part of the cost of January 6. He was proud to protect this Capitol. He gave his life for doing it. Last Wednesday, Officer Sicknick's ashes were carried in a wooden box into the Rotunda of the Capitol, where we honored him. The silence of his return was made more painful by remembering how an angry mob had desecrated this building that he loved. Brian Sicknick paid for that hushed peace with his life. He is one of a long line of patriots who have given their lives over more than 240 years to protect this country. For his sake, for all of those wounded on January 6, and for the safety of our democracy, we have to put an end to Donald Trump's big lie, once and for all, and look honestly at the culpability of the man who incited this mob to attack Congress, to attack the Constitution, and to attack our way of life. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS585 | null | 2,290 |
formal | take back our country | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was just noting that the Senate Chamber has been rearranged because tomorrow we commence the impeachment trial, the second impeachment of Donald Trump. In the center of the well is a podium and microphone where the attorneys representing the House managers who voted the impeachment resolution will stand to make their case a few hours after we commence the trial. The President's defenders will have the same opportunity. They will be standing in a spot that is literally 4 or 5 feet away from a location still fresh in my mind. It was there right in the center of the aisle between the majority and minority leader of the Senate, on January 6, when two men appeared whom I had never seen before in plain clothes and stood in the center of the well holding automatic weapons. It was just minutes after the Vice President had been removed from the chair where you are sitting, whisked off the floor of the Senate by the Secret Service, I imagine. He was pulled off the floor. It wasn't a ``follow me, Mr. Vice President''; they pulled him off the floor. That was at 2:15. Within a few minutes, the mob which had invaded the U.S. Capitol was on the march, on its way toward this Chamber where most of us were sitting, having dealt with our constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes. I remember when they interrupted the quorum call that they were conducting for one of the Capitol policemen to stand before us and say: Everyone stay in your seats. We are going to bring all the staffers. They are going to line the walls. We are going to lock all the doors. This will be the safe room in the Capitol. It couldn't have been more than 10 or 15 minutes later when the same policeman said: Everybody out now. The mob had come through the Capitol, through the Rotunda, and was now on the Senate side of the building within easy reach of 100 Senators. So we filed out the back door and down a staircase, over to the tunnels, and down to the Hart Building, hoping to escape them. I watched through the window as I went down the steps and saw all the flags coming up toward the Capitol--American flags, Trump flags, flags I didn't recognize--all the people coming up here. We know what happened later that same day. The mob crashed through the doors into this Chamber, posed for pictures at our desks, and scrawled messages to us, went through our desks and looked at them, literally interrupted the business of the U.S. Senate counting all the electoral votes. Was that just an accident, that thousands of people were in Washington on January 6? Was that just an accident, that they gathered at the Ellipse for the President of the United States, Donald Trump, to speak to them? Was it just an accident that within 40 minutes or 45 minutes after the President sent them off to the Capitol, they were here breaking windows and breaking down doors to come inside? No, it was by design. We are now learning who designed that strategy and that attack on the Capitol, and tomorrow we are going to start a trial to determine whether the former President of the United States of America bears responsibility for inciting that mob or inspiring that insurrection. When you read the history of the writing of the Constitution, it is almost impossible--maybe it is impossible to put yourself in the moment. These men, all men, gathered in Philadelphia. They had just fought a bloody, long war, a Revolutionary War against one of the most powerful nations in the world, and they were setting up a government on this side of the ocean with the hopes that it would survive. And they were worried. They were worried about the enemy from without and the enemy from within. They talked about our responsibility to maintain this democracy and the challenges we might face. At the time, they were wary because of what they lived through. As we read about it now, we wonder, what was the concern? What was behind all that concern? If you are honest, you know that in 1861, our Nation went to war with itself in a Civil War with over half a million lives lost. So it was a fragile democracy, as they thought. But we never dreamed--at least, I never dreamed that in the 21st century, there would be a concern over an insurrection to overthrow the Government of the United States with violence. No, not in America. Not in 2021. That is exactly what happened on January 6. That is why we will be meeting tomorrow for the accountability of Donald Trump for that event. Now, there are people who have told us we should get over it. Get over it. He is gone. Why do you keep talking about Donald Trump? Let him ride off into the sunset, as one fellow shouted at me at the airport a few weeks ago. Why would you want to keep reminding us of our differences in visions Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious. We can't reach real unity in America until we deal with the reality of America as Donald Trump left it, and January 6 was a classic illustration. There is one other image I share in my thinking about this trial when I hear former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, the former Governor of South Carolina, say ``Get over it'' to the Democrats. I think of that solemn scene in the Capitol Rotunda last week as we honored Capitol Hill Policeman Brian Sicknick, who was murdered by that mob--murdered by that mob. I spoke to his mom and dad afterwards. He always wanted to be a police officer. He served in the Air Force, but he wanted to be a police officer. His mom said: ``We thought of all places for him to be a police officer, the safest had to be the United States Capitol building.'' And she lost her son to that murderous mob. I can't get over that. I am sure his family will never get over it. If we can't give an honest answer to the American people for what happened and who was responsible for it, shame on us. America came close to losing this democracy on January 6. This President'sdesign was to make sure an election didn't count, that November 3 was ignored. What happened on January 6 was an attempted coup, make no mistake. As others have pointed out, an attempted coup that is not punished is a trial run for the next time. Over the 4 years of his Presidency, someone decided to take account of the many times that the President lied to the American people. They were in the thousands. Many of his lies were an attempt to discredit anyone or any institution that stood in his way. It is an old trick straight out of the authoritarian handbook: Tell so many lies that people can no longer tell fact from fiction. His last and most damaging lie was, over and over he repeated to the American people: They stole the election. They rigged the election. Donald Trump's apologists will come to the floor of the Senate in the next few days and say that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted, whether it was the truth or not. But no one, not even the President, has a First Amendment right to incite an insurrection against this government. That is not a right; it is a crime, a high crime. When he first ran for President in 2016, Donald Trump said the only way he could lose is if the election were stolen. Four years later, he tweeted the lie of a stolen election so many times at his rallies. When he lost, he tried to convince the courts. He went to 60 different courts pleading that the election had been rigged and stolen. They laughed him out of the court every time. He tried to bully officials in swing States and members of his own administration. On January 2, as Americans were dying of COVID-19, Donald Trump was on the telephone to the Republican secretary of state of the State of Georgia, spending more than an hour pleading and threatening him to somehow ``find the votes'' to overturn that State's votes in the Presidential election. Trump failed. The Republican secretary of state refused his request. He was not intimidated by his threats and had the foresight to tape record the conversation so there could be no denial. For weeks before January 6, Donald Trump exhorted his followers to come to Washington on the day that Congress would assemble to certify State electoral votes. He knew that his extremist followers were waiting for their signals and their orders. Over the summer, when armed extremists stormed and occupied State capitals, demanding an end to COVID safety instructions, Donald Trump cheered them on. On January 6, he whipped them into a frenzy just a few short moments from here. He spoke for more than an hour at that rally at the Ellipse. This is some of what he said--and I quote Donald Trump--to the mob on its way to the Capitol. ``We will never give up,'' he said. ``We will never concede. It doesn't happen.'' Then he said, ``We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.'' Then he spoke of his Vice President, and he said, ``I hope Mike is doing the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. . . . All [the Vice President] has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.'' Then he said, ``We have to fight like hell,'' Donald Trump said to that crowd before they made it up to the Capitol. ``If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,'' Donald Trump said. ``Our boldest endeavors have not yet begun. . . . We're going to the Capitol. We're going to try and give [the Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.'' Donald Trump wasn't shocked at what happened next. The crowd followed orders. He was excited. According to reports, he ignored police pleas from the White House, who begged him--people around him begged him to do something to calm the mob before they got to the Capitol. At 2:11 p.m., the mob smashed through the doors and windows and began pouring into this building. Thirteen minutes later, while the mob chanted ``Hang Mike Pence,'' Donald Trump tweeted ``Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country . . . giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts . . . USA demands the truth!'' At 6:01 p.m., Donald Trump again tweeted to the mob 4 hours after they had broken into this building. Here is what he said: ``These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace.'' And he closed, ``Remember this day forever!'' I will. And those of us in this building at the moment will. Brian Sicknick's family will. Now nearly all of our Republican colleagues tell us it is time to move on. Forget about it. Forget the authoritarian President and his contempt for democracy that summoned this mob. Forget the failed coup without accountability. Just move on. Polls show that the majority of Republican voters in America believe Donald Trump's lie. They still believe him, even after it has been rejected by local and State election officials of both parties. That is why the Senate is proceeding to the second impeachment trial tomorrow. Donald Trump is gone from elected office, but the poison he injected into the national bloodstream remains, and it grows even more toxic. On the inauguration of President Joe Biden, it was different from any I have seen, and it was the tenth one that I witnessed. The crowd was contained in a very small garden area. There were many more National Guardsmen in the streets of Washington as he was sworn in on January 20 than the crowd that assembled on the Mall. I used to go to Central America and visited countries like El Salvador. I can remember being at the capitol of El Salvador. I was struck, at the time, by soldiers standing on the street corners with automatic weapons, and I thought: What kind of country can this be that soldiers will stand up just like a normal cop on the beat with automatic weapons? We have reached that point here in Washington. We have reached that point in the Senate Chamber. It is a reminder of the fragility and vulnerability of our democracy. There is a great cost to what we have just been through, and we continue to incur it to keep the people in this Capitol safe and those who visit. But there is a deeper cost. Brian Sicknick is part of the cost of January 6. He was proud to protect this Capitol. He gave his life for doing it. Last Wednesday, Officer Sicknick's ashes were carried in a wooden box into the Rotunda of the Capitol, where we honored him. The silence of his return was made more painful by remembering how an angry mob had desecrated this building that he loved. Brian Sicknick paid for that hushed peace with his life. He is one of a long line of patriots who have given their lives over more than 240 years to protect this country. For his sake, for all of those wounded on January 6, and for the safety of our democracy, we have to put an end to Donald Trump's big lie, once and for all, and look honestly at the culpability of the man who incited this mob to attack Congress, to attack the Constitution, and to attack our way of life. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS585 | null | 2,291 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as many of us know, our country is mourning the loss of a great man, a man who I believe was one of the greatest of the Greatest Generation. Yesterday, we all received the sad news that George Shultz, Secretary Shultz, died in his home in California yesterday. He was 100 years old. He just celebrated his 100th birthday in December. He was a man of great intelligence, of courage, of integrity. He exemplified service, what is great about this Nation, and hope for our country--not just for our country but countries around the world. Democracy itself was something that this great American promoted. He leaves behind his wife Charlotte, 3 daughters, 2 sons, 11 grandchildren, and 9 great-grandchildren. Of course, our prayers for his family are going out to all of them during this difficult time. There are people who have lived history, and there are people who have made history. Secretary Shultz made history. He lived a life in full, and he was always giving back to his country, to his fellow Americans. He was one of only two, I believe, American citizens who held four different Cabinet posts in the U.S. Government. He was OMB Director, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, and, most importantly, Secretary of State for almost the entire two terms of President Reagan's tenure during some very perilous times in our country's history. As Secretary of State, there is no doubt that Secretary Shultz, along with President Reagan, did so much to win the Cold War, to bring down the Berlin Wall eventually, to successfully not just defeat in the Cold War the Soviet Union but to foster the infrastructure of democracy around the globe. If you read about his exploits, if you read his autobiography, you will see so much of what George Shultz did for our country, which was so important. It is not an exaggeration to say we are living in a more peaceful and prosperous world--there is no doubt we have challenges--because of men like Secretary Shultz. One of the great honors of my lifetime was to get to know Secretary Shultz over the last several years. I had the opportunity to meet with him many, many times and to listen and learn--and his mind was so sharp--from the stories that he would tell. This, to me, is another great example of leadership--people who, even in the end years of their life, are still mentoring others, whether Senators or students. He would regularly teach classes at Stanford as part of the Hoover Institution out there. He kept writing books until his 100th birthday. I had the opportunity to wish him a happy birthday in December and was even on a Zoom call with him. I will say, in my experience with him, certain things kept coming out, themes of a life: service, of course, patriotism, integrity, trust, and also the U.S. Marine Corps. You know, when it comes to the issue of integrity, you look at Secretary Shultz's career, his life, and he always had integrity as the highest principle, and he talked about that, not just integrity to do the right thing, which meant sometimes saying no, but he did this throughout his career. And, then, at the very twilight of his career, he talked about not just integrity but trust--trust as the coin of the realm of a good life, of service. As he was turning 100 in December, he put out a little pamphlet. It is right here. I read the whole thing. I encourage my colleagues to read it: Life and Learning after One Hundred Years. Trust Is the Coin of the Realm. Reflections on Trust and Effective Relationships across a New Hinge of History. George P. Shultz, December 13, 2020. Who does that when they are 100--put out a pamphlet on trust? Well, George Shultz did that In the pamphlet, Secretary Shultz wrote that one lesson he learned as a child and retained over and over again was the importance of trust. As he says in this pamphlet: When trust was in the room, whatever room that was--the family room, the schoolroom, the coach's room, the office room, the government room, or the military room--good things happen. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. I think, certainly, we can learn that here in the U.S. Senate, where trust is the coin of the realm here. There is no doubt about that. This idea of trust is a lesson that stayed with him throughout his career and a concept that he believed--when you read all his writings and talked to him the way so many of us have had the opportunity to--helped lead to the end of the Cold War--trust. President Reagan, General Secretary Gorbachev together eliminated intermediate-range nuclear weapons, which laid down the foundation for the peaceful end of the Cold War in which the United States was victorious. This pamphlet by Secretary Shultz on trust can be found online at https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/shultz_finalfile_web-ready.pdf. Even to the end of his days, he was still looking at providing guidance to the Senate. I had a talk with him, as I mentioned, just about 5 weeks ago about his coming to testify in front of the Armed Services Committee, a tradition started by another great American, John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Every January, we would start with some statesmen with a lot of knowledge and history, and George Shultz was always part of that, testifying in front of the Armed Services Committee at 98, 99 years old, with Henry Kissinger, the junior man in the room, who was just a year or two younger. Senator Reed and I were just talking recently about bringing Secretary Shultz back to, once again, testify in front of the Armed Services Committee, and I am sad to say we have lost this great American before he can do that again. Let me conclude with this: The other thing I loved about George Shultz is that he was, first and foremost, a U.S. marine. Until the end of his life, he spoke about the pride he gained from serving in combat in World War II as a Marine Corps officer and the many, many lessons he learned throughout his life from his service in the Marines. The first time I ever met the Secretary, I went into his office. I thought there would be a bunch of pictures with famous people--there were some of those--but there were Marine Corps recruiting posters everywhere. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, another great American, recounted in her excellent op-ed about the legacy of Secretary Shultz just yesterday in the Washington Post. He told her that being Secretary of State was ``the best job in government.'' When she got nominated to be Secretary of State, he called her to give her some advice. They were very good friends. He was a mentor of hers as well. He said it is the best job in government, the Secretary of State. And then he corrected himself: It is the best job except for when I was a Marine Corps captain. That is what he told Condi, so he was first and foremost a marine. For all of these reasons, I will be calling up a resolution, a bipartisan resolution, to honor the life, achievements, and legacy of the Honorable George P. Shultz, who has done so much for our great Nation. We are working on this. Hopefully, we will get it passed in the Senate here soon. It is very bipartisan already. I was hoping to get it done tonight. When great Americans leave us, it is really important that we reflect and look on the life of service, commitment, patriotism, honor, courage, and learn from that. Even though he is gone after 100 years, I know I am going to be learning from George Shultz for a long, long time. I sure hope and I expect and I certainly believe that my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate and our fellow Americans will be as well. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-08-pt1-PgS586 | null | 2,292 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Loving God, I come to You this day in prayer for each and every person who labors in this place, for their heartfelt dedication to their tasks, for the commitments they have made to serve their country as Members, as staffers, interns, service providers, and security officers, and the whole range of duties and responsibilities represented in this workforce. None of the men and women do so without significant cost to themselves and to their families. I lift up to You the burdens they carry: personal illness and afflictions; the health and welfare of family members; the anxiety and discouragement felt when efforts are disregarded or unappreciated; tragedy and loss. Their names and situations are known to You, O Lord, but especially this day we pray for those who grieve the loss of Representative Ron Wright. We are grateful that in his living he showed us a principled life, the importance of integrity, and the gift of thoughtfulness to those around him. May the example of his fortitude in the face of life's adversities serve as a testimony to the hope we have in Your eternal care. We pray in the strength of Your holy name. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-11-pt1-PgH491-2 | null | 2,293 |
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 to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), the whole number of the House is now 432. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-02-11-pt1-PgH492-2 | null | 2,294 |
formal | early life | null | antisemitic | Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my friend Gary Herbert on a career of esteemed public service. Gary's steady hand of leadership as the 17th Governor of Utah guided our State closer to fulfilling its promise of safety, security, and prosperity for all Utahns. A son of Orem, UT, Gary faithfully answered his call to service in his early life and career. From his missionary service for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to his military and civil service as a staff sergeant in the Utah Army National Guard, to elected office, Gary's unwavering early commitment to public service earned him the respect and experience necessary for future success. Gary Herbert's unique ability to articulate sound public policy on behalf of his community earned him a seat on the Utah County Commission, where he demonstrated principled leadership for 14 years. Soon after, Herbert was elected to serve as lieutenant governor, overseeing multiple statewide commissions and the State electoral office. Four years later, Utahns reaffirmed their State's leadership with a record reelection victory for Governor John Huntsman Jr. and Lieutenant Governor Herbert. Governor Herbert assumed the mantle of leadership and gubernatorial responsibilities on August 11, 2009, following the resignation of his predecessor. For the next decade, the Governor approached significant challenges with a sharp focus and principled decision making. He surrounded himself with impressive public servants and exemplified a compassionate and nuanced approach to good governance. Through an early economic crisis and a myriad of complex public policy challenges relating to civil liberties, faith, education, infrastructure, and public health, Governor Herbert's legacy reflects his impressive caliber of personal character and leadership in difficult circumstances. Gary's lifetime of public service is sustained by the devotion he shares with former First Lady Jeannette Herbert and their children and grandchildren. Our great State owes Gary Herbert and his family an abundance of gratitude for years of integrity and virtue as Utah's chief public servant. Utah will continue to shine as the brightest star on our American flag. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROMNEY | Senate | CREC-2021-02-12-pt1-PgS702-3 | null | 2,295 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-409. A communication from the General Counsel of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rules of Practice and Procedure; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustment'' (RIN2590-AB14) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-410. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Collection of Civil Money Penalty Debt'' (RIN3064-AF25) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-411. A communication from the Chief of the Domestic Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl'' (RIN1018-BF01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-412. A communication from the Vice President of External Affairs, Tennessee Valley Authority, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy for the position of Inspector General, Tennessee Valley Authority, received in the office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-413. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare Program; Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) and Definition of `Reasonable and Necessary'' (RIN0938-AT88) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-414. A communication from the Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Official Time in Federal Sector Cases Before the Commission'' (RIN3046-AB00) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-415. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table'' (RIN0906-AB24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-416. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely'' (RIN0991-AC24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-417. A communication from the Supervisory Workforce Analyst, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States'' (RIN1205-AC00) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2021; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-418. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Addition of New Standards of Fill for Wine and Distilled Spirits; Amendment of Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverage Net Contents Labeling Regulations'' (RIN1513- AB56) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-419. A communication from the Acting Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to Safety Standard for Infant Swings'' ((16 CFR Part 1223) (Docket No. CPSC-2013-0025)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-420. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Proposed of Class E Airspace; Paris, Idaho'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0751)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-421. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0213)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-422. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the issuance of a Proclamation that terminates the national emergency first declared in Proclamation 9844 of February 15, 2019, with respect to declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States, received in the office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-423. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a report relative to the issuance of an Executive Order declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Burma, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-424. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Transferred Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) Regulations Regarding Nondiscrimination Requirements'' (RIN3064-AF35) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-425. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendments to Capital Planning and Stress Testing Requirements for Large Bank Holding Companies, Intermediate Holding Companies and Savings and Loan Holding Companies'' (RIN7100-AF95) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-426. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2022; Updates to State Innovation Waiver (Section 1332 Waiver) Implementing Regulations'' (RIN0938-AU18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-427. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1133)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-428. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21360'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1108)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-429. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1122)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-430. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2016-3343)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-431. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes; Amendment 39-21349'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0584)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-432. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21352'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0592)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-433. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly Known as SAAb AB, Saab Aeronautics) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21344'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0840)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-434. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21350'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0842)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-435. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. Engines and Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines With a Certain SAP Crankshaft Assembly; Amendment 39- 21354'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-1077)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-436. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21334'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1031)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-437. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled '' Airworthiness Directives; Technify Motors GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH) Reciprocating Engines; Amendment 39-21361'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1117)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-438. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21345'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1105)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-439. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21289'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0573)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-440. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21306'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0586)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-441. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whittney Division Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21361'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0542)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-442. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation, Inc. Airplanes (Type Certificate Previously Held by Beechcraft Corporation); Amendment 39-21343'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-718)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-443. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Hoffman GmbH and Co. KG Propellers; Amendment 39-21347'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1104)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-444. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-21337'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0570)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-445. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21290'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0984)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-446. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21334'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1031)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-12-pt1-PgS703 | null | 2,296 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-409. A communication from the General Counsel of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rules of Practice and Procedure; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustment'' (RIN2590-AB14) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-410. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Collection of Civil Money Penalty Debt'' (RIN3064-AF25) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-411. A communication from the Chief of the Domestic Listing Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl'' (RIN1018-BF01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-412. A communication from the Vice President of External Affairs, Tennessee Valley Authority, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy for the position of Inspector General, Tennessee Valley Authority, received in the office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-413. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare Program; Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) and Definition of `Reasonable and Necessary'' (RIN0938-AT88) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-414. A communication from the Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Official Time in Federal Sector Cases Before the Commission'' (RIN3046-AB00) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-415. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table'' (RIN0906-AB24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-416. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely'' (RIN0991-AC24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-417. A communication from the Supervisory Workforce Analyst, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States'' (RIN1205-AC00) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2021; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-418. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Addition of New Standards of Fill for Wine and Distilled Spirits; Amendment of Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverage Net Contents Labeling Regulations'' (RIN1513- AB56) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-419. A communication from the Acting Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to Safety Standard for Infant Swings'' ((16 CFR Part 1223) (Docket No. CPSC-2013-0025)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 3, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-420. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Proposed of Class E Airspace; Paris, Idaho'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0751)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-421. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0213)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-422. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the issuance of a Proclamation that terminates the national emergency first declared in Proclamation 9844 of February 15, 2019, with respect to declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States, received in the office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-423. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a report relative to the issuance of an Executive Order declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Burma, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-424. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Transferred Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) Regulations Regarding Nondiscrimination Requirements'' (RIN3064-AF35) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-425. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendments to Capital Planning and Stress Testing Requirements for Large Bank Holding Companies, Intermediate Holding Companies and Savings and Loan Holding Companies'' (RIN7100-AF95) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-426. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2022; Updates to State Innovation Waiver (Section 1332 Waiver) Implementing Regulations'' (RIN0938-AU18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 2, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-427. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1133)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-428. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21360'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1108)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-429. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1122)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-430. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2016-3343)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-431. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes; Amendment 39-21349'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0584)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-432. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21352'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0592)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-433. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly Known as SAAb AB, Saab Aeronautics) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21344'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0840)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-434. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21350'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0842)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-435. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. Engines and Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines With a Certain SAP Crankshaft Assembly; Amendment 39- 21354'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2018-1077)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-436. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21334'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1031)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-437. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled '' Airworthiness Directives; Technify Motors GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH) Reciprocating Engines; Amendment 39-21361'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1117)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-438. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21345'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1105)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-439. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21289'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0573)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-440. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21306'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0586)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-441. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whittney Division Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21361'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0542)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-442. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation, Inc. Airplanes (Type Certificate Previously Held by Beechcraft Corporation); Amendment 39-21343'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-718)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-443. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Hoffman GmbH and Co. KG Propellers; Amendment 39-21347'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1104)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-444. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-21337'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0570)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-445. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21290'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0984)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-446. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21334'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1031)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 9, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-12-pt1-PgS703 | null | 2,297 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, January 6 was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth because he was angry he lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful--disgraceful--dereliction of duty. The House accused the former President of ``incitement.'' That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago. There is no question--none--that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President, and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on January 6. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ``trial by combat.'' It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths--myths--about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President. Now, I defended the President's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke. The electoral college spoke. As I stood up and said clearly at that time, the election was settled. It was over. But that just really opened a new chapter of even wilder--wilder--and more unfounded claims. The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. Now, sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors--we saw that--that unhinged listeners might take literally, but that was different. That is different from what we saw. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing President who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out. The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began. Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day, whatever reaction he says he meant to produce, by that afternoon, we know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration. The President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so Federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily--happily--as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters, the President sent a further tweet attacking his own Vice President. Now, predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence, not surprisingly. Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he didn't call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later. And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals. In recent weeks, our ex-President's associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to reelect him as a kind of human shield against criticism--using the 74 million who voted for him as kind of a human shield against criticism. Anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That is an absurd deflection. Seventy-four million Americans did not invade the Capitol. Hundreds of rioters did. Seventy-four million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did it--just one. Now, I have made my view of this episode very plain. But our system of government gave the Senate a specific task. The Constitution gives us a particular role. This body is not invited to act as the Nation's overarching moral tribunal. We are not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment. Justice Joseph Story was our Nation's first great constitutional scholar. As he explained nearly 200 yearsago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool--a narrow tool--for a narrow purpose. Story explained this limited tool exists to ``secure the state against gross official misdemeanors''; that is, to protect the country from government officers. If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge. By the strict criminal standard, the President's speech probably was not incitement. However--however--in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot. But in this case, the question is moot because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. Now, this is a close question, no doubt. Donald Trump was the President when the House voted, though not when the House chose to deliver the papers. Brilliant scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who reached either conclusion. But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that article II, section 4 exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried, or convicted. It is the President. It is the Vice President and civil officers. We have no power to convict and disqualify a former office holder who is now a private citizen. Here is article II, section 4: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Now, everyone basically agrees that the second half of that sentence exhausts the legitimate grounds for conviction. The debates around the Constitution's framing make that abundantly clear. Congress cannot convict for reasons besides those. It therefore follows that the list of persons in that same sentence is also exhaustive. There is no reason why one list--one list--would be exhaustive but the other would not. Article II, section 4 must limit both why impeachment and conviction can occur and to whom--and to whom. If this provision does not limit impeachment and conviction powers, then it has no limits at all. The House's ``sole power of Impeachment'' and the Senate's ``sole Power to try all Impeachments'' would create an unlimited circular logic, empowering Congress to ban any private citizen from Federal office. Now, that is an incredible claim. But it is the argument the House managers seemed to be making. One manager said the House and Senate have ``absolute, unqualified . . . jurisdictional power.'' Well, that was very honest, because there is no limiting principle in the constitutional text that would empower the Senate to convict former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizen--an absurd end result to which no one subscribes. Article II, section 4 must have force. It tells us the President, the Vice President and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. Donald Trump is no longer the President. Likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction ``shall be removed from Office if convicted''--``shall be removed from Office if convicted.'' As Justice Story explained, ``the Senate, [upon] conviction, [is] bound in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office.'' Removal is mandatory upon conviction. Clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to someone who has left office. The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible. In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term--an argument we heard made by the managers. But this underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice--never meant to be the final forum for American justice. Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intragovernmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal. Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were--and this is extremely important--``still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.'' Put another way, in the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen--unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. He didn't get away with anything yet--yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation, and former Presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution doesn't give us, and the Senate was right not to entertain some light-speed sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction. It took both sides more than a week just to produce their pretrial briefs. Speaker Pelosi's own scheduling decisions conceded what President Biden publicly confirmed: A Senate verdict before Inauguration Day was never possible. Now, Mr. President, this has been a dispiriting time, but the Senate has done our duty. The Framers' firewall held up again. On January 6, we returned to our post and certified the election. We were uncowed. We were not intimidated. We finished the job. And, since then, we resisted the clamor to define our own constitutional guardrails in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. We refused to continue a cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response. The Senate's decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day. It simply shows that Senators did what the former President failed to do: We put our constitutional duty first. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS735-2 | null | 2,298 |
formal | rigged election | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain why I voted to convict the former President of the United States, Donald Trump, of the Article of Impeachment presented by the House of Representatives in regards to the incitement of insurrection. Throughout his Presidency, Donald J. Trump has violated his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. There are many examples that I can give of how he has violated his oath of office. I could also cite the basis of the first Articles of Impeachment that were tried last year as violating his oath of office. But, by far, the most egregious violation of his oath of office took place in his incitement of insurrection that occurred with the attack on this Capitol on January 6. But it started well before January 6. The seeds were planted a long time ago and even before the November elections, when President Trump pointed out, when the polls were showing that he might lose in the election, that he refused to acknowledge that he would accept the election results if he lost. He didn't say that once before the November elections, he said it on several occasions. He talked about a rigged election. He talked about a fraudulent election. He talked about the election being ``taken away from us''--the victory--with no evidence of voter fraud. One of the key provisions of our Constitution, of our democracy, is the peaceful transition of power. Donald Trump called that into question prior to the November 3 elections. Then came the November 3 elections, and, shortly thereafter, Joe Biden was declared to be the winner. Why? Because he had the most votes--most populace votes--over 7 million. But he was declared the winner because of the electoral votes, 306 to 232. By the way, that is the same electoral margin that Donald Trump won 4 years earlier and which Donald Trump called a ``landslide.'' But then came the legal challenges by President Trump. He didn't accept the electoral vote or the declared elections. And he has his right to contest the elections in the court by asking for recounts or asking for challenges, but in every one of those cases, he couldnot establish widespread fraud that would have changed the results in any one of the States, let alone enough electoral vote changes to change the outcome of the election. But did he stop after he was denied relief in all of those legal challenges? The answer is no. He further contested by trying to inappropriately interfere with State election officials and State public officials, urging them to take action to change the certification results. Now, we have many examples that during this period of time he was talking about a fraudulent election, a stolen election, all the different things about raising questions as to the legitimacy of the voices of people of this Nation. We have so many examples of his interference, but we actually have the tape of his conversation with the Georgia secretary of state that we all heard and heard how the President tried to intimidate and threaten the secretary of state of Georgia in order to change the certified election results from the votes of the people of Georgia--clear examples of how President Trump violated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. But that wasn't the end of it. He went to his Department of Justice believing the Department of Justice is his Department of Justice, not the Department of Justice of the United States of America. Now, let's remember that the Department of Justice had found no widespread corruption. In fact, they had determined this was one of the freest elections and one of the least problem elections that we have had. It didn't stop President Trump from trying to intimidate and order his Department of Justice to conduct an additional investigation to find fraud to overturn the will of the people--once again, violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He continued to do this, contrary to his constitutional obligations. ``Corrupt election,'' ``stop the steal,'' ``rigged elections,'' ``tremendous fraud''--all words that he used after the November 3 election. He knew what he was saying was a lie. He knew there was no widespread fraud, but he continued to use the Office of the Presidency and his voice to promote the big lie, and he knew his followers would believe it. He knew he could convince his loyal followers to believe that this was a rigged election--a stolen election--again, compromising our democracy and the will of the people to determine who our leaders are. And he knew his followers would be motivated to action because he knew he could motivate his followers. He put himself before the Nation and before his responsibilities as President of the United States. He put his own self-interest above his responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States and to the people of this Nation. And then he summoned his loyal following to Washington on January 6. He knew they would come. He knew dangerous people were in the group. He knew the Proud Boys were there, to which he had directly said: ``Stand back and stand by.'' He knew that they were ready for violent action. And then he incited the mob to action on January 6. We know the words that he used. We saw the videos as part of the record of the impeachment trial. ``We will never surrender,'' ``we will never concede,'' ``we will stop the steal,'' ``stolen election''--all words that he had been using during the entire 2020 election cycle, particularly when he thought he was going to lose. But the most damning part of the President's violation of his oath of office--the most serious part--is what he did and did not do after seeing the violence erupt in the United States Capitol. After the Capitol was penetrated, after we saw the violence being committed, where we knew that the Members of Congress were in danger, the Vice President of the United States was in danger, the people that work here were in danger, all the people that were in the Capitol legitimately were in danger--we all saw that--and the President of the United States knew that, and he did nothing to stop the violence. He could have called off his loyalists and told them to get out of the Capitol. He didn't do that. He could have sent in the National Guard in order to protect us. He didn't do that. And he never condemned the participants in this mob in penetrating the Capitol for what they did. I am going to sort of summarize my feeling about that by agreeing with Representative Liz Cheney, the House Republican caucus chair, who said it on the floor of the House. Let me just quote her statement: The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled this mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I agree with that. President Trump violated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He violated that. But let's take a look at what he did do after knowing the violence that occurred--his tweet of 2:24 p.m. Now, this is after the Vice President had been removed from presiding in the Chamber, after he knew the violence that was taking place in the Capitol of the United States. He was aware of all that. He knew that we had shut down the operations of the House and the Senate, that there was violence taking place within the Capitol, and that his Vice President was the target of that attack. And what he tweeted at 2:24 p.m.--I am quoting the President: ``Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country.'' He inflamed the group even more to violence after he knew that it was a violent circumstance. He had known violence had taken place, and we heard put into the record of the impeachment trial today Congresswoman Beutler's report of Majority Leader McCarthy's conversation, which, again, is during this period of time. Here we are. The Republican leader of the House of Representatives gets the President on the phone. He says: Mr. President, we are being attacked. My office is being broken into. We need help. Send the Guard. Take care of us. And then President Trump said something like: Well, it is not my supporters. It is some leftwing group. And Leader McCarthy said: No, Mr. President, these are your supporters who are doing this. And what did the leader say? What did the President say? I guess, Kevin, these people are more upset about the election than you are. Here we have the Members of Congress in harm's way, and the President is talking about the support for those who are causing the violence and putting his own interest above the safety of the people whom he is sworn to protect as our Commander in Chief. And then, at the end of the day, about 6 o'clock, he sends out a tweet that really sums up his feelings about what these people were doing. Now, these are people who came into the Capitol. They killed people. They hurt people. They stole property. They damaged property. They invaded the Capitol of the United States. They hurt law enforcement officers. They hurt all of us. They hurt our democracy. So how does the President sum up the day? His tweet: These are the things that happen when a sacred landslide victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever! He was repeating the big lie and saying the day was a day of celebration when it was one of the bleakest days, dark days in the history of our Nation. That is what President Trump did, rather than bringing in the National Guard, rather than telling his people to go home, rather than being concerned about the safety of the Vice President and the Members of Congress as the President of the United States should have been doing. He violated his oath of office over and over and over again--a pattern of practice that we have seen for so long. It clearly establishes that he incited an insurrection against our country--that the facts included as a basis for the Article of Impeachment brought to us by the House of Representatives have been proven. The purpose of impeachment is not just the accountability for the President but also to protect our Constitution and to make sure this conduct never happens again. No one is abovethe law, including the President of the United States. Everyone who was responsible for the insurrection that occurred on January 6 should be held accountable--from those who broke into the Capitol and caused the harm and damage to the President of the United States who incited the violence. That is why I voted to convict President Trump of the Article of Impeachment for inciting an insurrection, and that is why I would have voted for disqualifying him from ever holding an office of trust again. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS736 | null | 2,299 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.