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 | voter fraud | 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 | 2,300 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the hallmark of our American democracy is the peaceful transfer of power after the voters choose their leaders. In America, we accept election results even if our candidate does not prevail. If a candidate believes that there is fraud, the courts can hear and decide those issues. Otherwise, the authority to govern is vested in the duly elected officials. On January 6, this Congress gathered in the Capitol to count the votes of the electoral college, pursuant to the process set forth in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At the same time, a mob stormed the Capitol, determined to stop Congress from carrying out our constitutional duty. That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. Rather, it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the Presidential election. The President's unprecedented efforts to discredit the election results did not begin on January 6. Rather, he planted the seeds of doubt many weeks before votes were cast on November 3. He repeatedly told his supporters that only a rigged election could cause him to lose. Thus began President Trump's crusade to undermine public confidence in the Presidential election unless he won. Early in the morning of November 4, as the ballots continued to be counted, President Trump claimed victory and asserted that Democrats were trying to steal the election. On November 8, the day after several media outlets had declared Joe Biden the apparent winner based on State-by-State results, President Trump tweeted: This was a stolen election. With that, his postelection campaign to change the outcome began. Over the ensuing days and months, the President distorted the results of the election, continuing to claim that he had won, while court after court threw out his lawsuits and States continued to certify their results. President Trump's falsehoods convinced a large number of Americans that he had won and that they were being cheated. The President also embarked on an incredible effort to pressure State election officials to change the results in their States. The most egregious example occurred on January 2. In an extraordinary phone call, President Trump could be heard alternating between lobbying, cajoling, intimidating, and threatening the election officials in Georgia. ``I just want to find 11,708 votes,'' he stated, seeking the exact number of votes needed to change the outcome in that State. Despite the President's pleas and threats, the Georgia officials refused to yield to the Presidential pressure, as did State officials in other States. In December, President Trump's postelection campaign became focused on January 6, the day that Congress was scheduled to count the electoral college votes. Although this counting is a ceremonial and administrative act, it is nevertheless the constitutionally mandated final step in the electoral college and the electoral process, and it must occur before a new President can be inaugurated. On December 19, President Trump tweeted to his supporters: Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild! In response, some of his campaign supporters changed the date for protest rallies they originally had scheduled to occur after the inauguration to happen instead on January 6. Having failed to persuade the courts and State election officials, President Trump next began to pressure Vice President Pence to use his role under the 12th Amendment to overturn the election. The President met with Vice President Pence on January 5 and then increased the pressure by tweeting hours later: If [the Vice President] comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. That is what his tweet said. Vice President Pence, however, refused to yield. He issued a public letter on January 6 making clear that his oath to support and defend the Constitution would prevent him from unilaterally deciding which electoral vote should be counted and which should not. During his speech at the Ellipse on January 6, President Trump kept up that drumbeat of pressure on Vice President Pence. In front of a large, agitated crowd, he urged the Vice President to ``stand up for the good of our Constitution.'' ``I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do,'' President Trump concluded. Rather than facilitating the peaceful transfer of power, President Trump was telling Vice President Pence to ignore the Constitution and to refuse to count the certified votes. He was also further agitating the crowd, directing them to march to the Capitol. In this situation, context was everything. Tossing a lit match into a pile of dry leaves is very different from tossing it into a pool of water. And on January 6, the atmosphere among the crowd outside the White House was highly combustible, largely the result of an ill wind blowing from Washington for the past 2 months. President Trump had stoked discontent with a steady barrage of false claims that the election had been stolen from him. The allegedly responsible officials were denigrated, scorned, and ridiculed by the President, with the predictable result that his supporters viewed any official they perceived to be an obstacle to President Trump's reelection as an enemy of their cause. That set the stage for the storming of the Capitol for the first time in more than 200 years. Nearly 30 minutes after the Capitol first came under attack, Members of Congress, law enforcement, and everyone else here in the Capitol waited in vein for the President to unequivocally condemn the violence and tell his misguided supporters to leave the Capitol. Rather than demand an end to the violence, President Trump expressed his frustration once again that the Vice President had not stopped the vote certification as he had urged Shortly after the Vice President was whisked away from this very Chamber to avoid the menacing mob chanting ``Hang Mike Pence,'' President Trump tweeted: Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done. Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one. Rather than defend the constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring. Whether by design or by virtue of a reckless disregard for the consequences of his action, President Trump, subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interest, bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol. This impeachment trial is not about any single word uttered by President Trump on January 6, 2021; it is instead about President Trump's failure to obey the oath he swore on January 20, 2017. His actions to interfere with the peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of our Constitution and our American democracy, were an abuse of power and constitute grounds for conviction. Two arguments have been made against conviction that deserve comment. The first is that this was a snap impeachment, that the House failed to hold hearings, conduct an investigation, and to interview witnesses, and that is true. Without a doubt, the House should have been more thorough. It should have compiled a more complete record. Nevertheless, the record is clear that the President, President Trump, abused his power, violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, and tried almost everymeans in his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to the newly elected President. Second is the contention that the First Amendment protects the President's right to make any sort of outrageous and false claims, no matter the consequences. (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.) But the First Amendment was not designed and must never be construed by any court to bar the impeachment and conviction of an official who violates his oath of office by summoning and inciting a mob to threaten other officials in the discharge of their constitutional obligations. My vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and for those reasons, I voted to convict Donald J. Trump. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS738 | null | 2,301 |
formal | rigged election | null | racist | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the hallmark of our American democracy is the peaceful transfer of power after the voters choose their leaders. In America, we accept election results even if our candidate does not prevail. If a candidate believes that there is fraud, the courts can hear and decide those issues. Otherwise, the authority to govern is vested in the duly elected officials. On January 6, this Congress gathered in the Capitol to count the votes of the electoral college, pursuant to the process set forth in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At the same time, a mob stormed the Capitol, determined to stop Congress from carrying out our constitutional duty. That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. Rather, it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the Presidential election. The President's unprecedented efforts to discredit the election results did not begin on January 6. Rather, he planted the seeds of doubt many weeks before votes were cast on November 3. He repeatedly told his supporters that only a rigged election could cause him to lose. Thus began President Trump's crusade to undermine public confidence in the Presidential election unless he won. Early in the morning of November 4, as the ballots continued to be counted, President Trump claimed victory and asserted that Democrats were trying to steal the election. On November 8, the day after several media outlets had declared Joe Biden the apparent winner based on State-by-State results, President Trump tweeted: This was a stolen election. With that, his postelection campaign to change the outcome began. Over the ensuing days and months, the President distorted the results of the election, continuing to claim that he had won, while court after court threw out his lawsuits and States continued to certify their results. President Trump's falsehoods convinced a large number of Americans that he had won and that they were being cheated. The President also embarked on an incredible effort to pressure State election officials to change the results in their States. The most egregious example occurred on January 2. In an extraordinary phone call, President Trump could be heard alternating between lobbying, cajoling, intimidating, and threatening the election officials in Georgia. ``I just want to find 11,708 votes,'' he stated, seeking the exact number of votes needed to change the outcome in that State. Despite the President's pleas and threats, the Georgia officials refused to yield to the Presidential pressure, as did State officials in other States. In December, President Trump's postelection campaign became focused on January 6, the day that Congress was scheduled to count the electoral college votes. Although this counting is a ceremonial and administrative act, it is nevertheless the constitutionally mandated final step in the electoral college and the electoral process, and it must occur before a new President can be inaugurated. On December 19, President Trump tweeted to his supporters: Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild! In response, some of his campaign supporters changed the date for protest rallies they originally had scheduled to occur after the inauguration to happen instead on January 6. Having failed to persuade the courts and State election officials, President Trump next began to pressure Vice President Pence to use his role under the 12th Amendment to overturn the election. The President met with Vice President Pence on January 5 and then increased the pressure by tweeting hours later: If [the Vice President] comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. That is what his tweet said. Vice President Pence, however, refused to yield. He issued a public letter on January 6 making clear that his oath to support and defend the Constitution would prevent him from unilaterally deciding which electoral vote should be counted and which should not. During his speech at the Ellipse on January 6, President Trump kept up that drumbeat of pressure on Vice President Pence. In front of a large, agitated crowd, he urged the Vice President to ``stand up for the good of our Constitution.'' ``I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do,'' President Trump concluded. Rather than facilitating the peaceful transfer of power, President Trump was telling Vice President Pence to ignore the Constitution and to refuse to count the certified votes. He was also further agitating the crowd, directing them to march to the Capitol. In this situation, context was everything. Tossing a lit match into a pile of dry leaves is very different from tossing it into a pool of water. And on January 6, the atmosphere among the crowd outside the White House was highly combustible, largely the result of an ill wind blowing from Washington for the past 2 months. President Trump had stoked discontent with a steady barrage of false claims that the election had been stolen from him. The allegedly responsible officials were denigrated, scorned, and ridiculed by the President, with the predictable result that his supporters viewed any official they perceived to be an obstacle to President Trump's reelection as an enemy of their cause. That set the stage for the storming of the Capitol for the first time in more than 200 years. Nearly 30 minutes after the Capitol first came under attack, Members of Congress, law enforcement, and everyone else here in the Capitol waited in vein for the President to unequivocally condemn the violence and tell his misguided supporters to leave the Capitol. Rather than demand an end to the violence, President Trump expressed his frustration once again that the Vice President had not stopped the vote certification as he had urged Shortly after the Vice President was whisked away from this very Chamber to avoid the menacing mob chanting ``Hang Mike Pence,'' President Trump tweeted: Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done. Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one. Rather than defend the constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring. Whether by design or by virtue of a reckless disregard for the consequences of his action, President Trump, subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interest, bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol. This impeachment trial is not about any single word uttered by President Trump on January 6, 2021; it is instead about President Trump's failure to obey the oath he swore on January 20, 2017. His actions to interfere with the peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of our Constitution and our American democracy, were an abuse of power and constitute grounds for conviction. Two arguments have been made against conviction that deserve comment. The first is that this was a snap impeachment, that the House failed to hold hearings, conduct an investigation, and to interview witnesses, and that is true. Without a doubt, the House should have been more thorough. It should have compiled a more complete record. Nevertheless, the record is clear that the President, President Trump, abused his power, violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, and tried almost everymeans in his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to the newly elected President. Second is the contention that the First Amendment protects the President's right to make any sort of outrageous and false claims, no matter the consequences. (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.) But the First Amendment was not designed and must never be construed by any court to bar the impeachment and conviction of an official who violates his oath of office by summoning and inciting a mob to threaten other officials in the discharge of their constitutional obligations. My vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and for those reasons, I voted to convict Donald J. Trump. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS738 | null | 2,302 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the hallmark of our American democracy is the peaceful transfer of power after the voters choose their leaders. In America, we accept election results even if our candidate does not prevail. If a candidate believes that there is fraud, the courts can hear and decide those issues. Otherwise, the authority to govern is vested in the duly elected officials. On January 6, this Congress gathered in the Capitol to count the votes of the electoral college, pursuant to the process set forth in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At the same time, a mob stormed the Capitol, determined to stop Congress from carrying out our constitutional duty. That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. Rather, it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the Presidential election. The President's unprecedented efforts to discredit the election results did not begin on January 6. Rather, he planted the seeds of doubt many weeks before votes were cast on November 3. He repeatedly told his supporters that only a rigged election could cause him to lose. Thus began President Trump's crusade to undermine public confidence in the Presidential election unless he won. Early in the morning of November 4, as the ballots continued to be counted, President Trump claimed victory and asserted that Democrats were trying to steal the election. On November 8, the day after several media outlets had declared Joe Biden the apparent winner based on State-by-State results, President Trump tweeted: This was a stolen election. With that, his postelection campaign to change the outcome began. Over the ensuing days and months, the President distorted the results of the election, continuing to claim that he had won, while court after court threw out his lawsuits and States continued to certify their results. President Trump's falsehoods convinced a large number of Americans that he had won and that they were being cheated. The President also embarked on an incredible effort to pressure State election officials to change the results in their States. The most egregious example occurred on January 2. In an extraordinary phone call, President Trump could be heard alternating between lobbying, cajoling, intimidating, and threatening the election officials in Georgia. ``I just want to find 11,708 votes,'' he stated, seeking the exact number of votes needed to change the outcome in that State. Despite the President's pleas and threats, the Georgia officials refused to yield to the Presidential pressure, as did State officials in other States. In December, President Trump's postelection campaign became focused on January 6, the day that Congress was scheduled to count the electoral college votes. Although this counting is a ceremonial and administrative act, it is nevertheless the constitutionally mandated final step in the electoral college and the electoral process, and it must occur before a new President can be inaugurated. On December 19, President Trump tweeted to his supporters: Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild! In response, some of his campaign supporters changed the date for protest rallies they originally had scheduled to occur after the inauguration to happen instead on January 6. Having failed to persuade the courts and State election officials, President Trump next began to pressure Vice President Pence to use his role under the 12th Amendment to overturn the election. The President met with Vice President Pence on January 5 and then increased the pressure by tweeting hours later: If [the Vice President] comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. That is what his tweet said. Vice President Pence, however, refused to yield. He issued a public letter on January 6 making clear that his oath to support and defend the Constitution would prevent him from unilaterally deciding which electoral vote should be counted and which should not. During his speech at the Ellipse on January 6, President Trump kept up that drumbeat of pressure on Vice President Pence. In front of a large, agitated crowd, he urged the Vice President to ``stand up for the good of our Constitution.'' ``I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do,'' President Trump concluded. Rather than facilitating the peaceful transfer of power, President Trump was telling Vice President Pence to ignore the Constitution and to refuse to count the certified votes. He was also further agitating the crowd, directing them to march to the Capitol. In this situation, context was everything. Tossing a lit match into a pile of dry leaves is very different from tossing it into a pool of water. And on January 6, the atmosphere among the crowd outside the White House was highly combustible, largely the result of an ill wind blowing from Washington for the past 2 months. President Trump had stoked discontent with a steady barrage of false claims that the election had been stolen from him. The allegedly responsible officials were denigrated, scorned, and ridiculed by the President, with the predictable result that his supporters viewed any official they perceived to be an obstacle to President Trump's reelection as an enemy of their cause. That set the stage for the storming of the Capitol for the first time in more than 200 years. Nearly 30 minutes after the Capitol first came under attack, Members of Congress, law enforcement, and everyone else here in the Capitol waited in vein for the President to unequivocally condemn the violence and tell his misguided supporters to leave the Capitol. Rather than demand an end to the violence, President Trump expressed his frustration once again that the Vice President had not stopped the vote certification as he had urged Shortly after the Vice President was whisked away from this very Chamber to avoid the menacing mob chanting ``Hang Mike Pence,'' President Trump tweeted: Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done. Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one. Rather than defend the constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring. Whether by design or by virtue of a reckless disregard for the consequences of his action, President Trump, subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interest, bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol. This impeachment trial is not about any single word uttered by President Trump on January 6, 2021; it is instead about President Trump's failure to obey the oath he swore on January 20, 2017. His actions to interfere with the peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of our Constitution and our American democracy, were an abuse of power and constitute grounds for conviction. Two arguments have been made against conviction that deserve comment. The first is that this was a snap impeachment, that the House failed to hold hearings, conduct an investigation, and to interview witnesses, and that is true. Without a doubt, the House should have been more thorough. It should have compiled a more complete record. Nevertheless, the record is clear that the President, President Trump, abused his power, violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, and tried almost everymeans in his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to the newly elected President. Second is the contention that the First Amendment protects the President's right to make any sort of outrageous and false claims, no matter the consequences. (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.) But the First Amendment was not designed and must never be construed by any court to bar the impeachment and conviction of an official who violates his oath of office by summoning and inciting a mob to threaten other officials in the discharge of their constitutional obligations. My vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and for those reasons, I voted to convict Donald J. Trump. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS738 | null | 2,303 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Inhofe, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 61 Whereas, on December 13, 1920, the Honorable George Pratt Shultz was born in New York City as the only child of Margaret Lennox and Birl Earl Shultz; Whereas, upon graduating cum laude from Princeton University with a major in economics and a minor in public and international affairs in 1942, Shultz joined the Marines and nobly served his country as a captain with a Marine anti- aircraft unit deployed with the United States Army's 81st Infantry Division to the Pacific for the bitterly fought Battle of Angaur in the Palau Islands; Whereas, following the war, Shultz earned a doctorate in industrial economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught in the Department of Economics and at the Sloan School of Management until taking leave to serve on President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors; Whereas Shultz then went on to join the University of Chicago as Dean of the Graduate School of Business from 1962 until 1968; Whereas Shultz left academia to honorably serve our country in a number of critical economic positions, including as Secretary of Labor, the country's first Director of a modernized Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Secretary of Treasury; Whereas, during his time at the Department of the Treasury, Shultz co-founded the ``Library Group'', which helped coordinate follow-up to the abolishment of the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system and develop what would eventually become the ``Group of Seven'' or the ``G-7'', an important forum that has strengthened international economic and security policy by regularly bringing together the world's advanced economies to assess global trends and tackle pervasive and crosscutting issues; Whereas Shultz served as Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989 and was directly involved in bringing Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan together through a process based upon mutual and verifiable trust, thereby allowing them to reach agreement on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), which eliminated ground- launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, and to initiate negotiations to reduce long-range strategic nuclear arms; Whereas, during his tenure as Secretary of State, Shultz had a strong and mutually supportive relationship with the career Foreign Service, which he relied heavily on to advance key international initiatives and attain foreign policy achievements of the Reagan Administration; Whereas Shultz recognized the need to better prepare a new generation of diplomatic service officers, whether Foreign or Civil Service, and ensured the creation of what became the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC), thus expanding short-term skills training to hundreds of ever more diverse Department of State and Federal Government personnel; Whereas, upon returning to private life in 1989, Shultz became a Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, wrote and edited several books, and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, along with more than a dozen other awards and prizes; Whereas, in his later years, Shultz passionately advocated for a world without nuclear weapons; and Whereas Shultz recently called for the strengthening and modernization of the professional education and training of our career diplomats: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) honors the life, achievements, and legacy of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz; (2) celebrates the statesmanship that consistently characterized Shultz's life; (3) acknowledges Shultz's published concern for rebuilding and strengthening American diplomacy and its home institution, the Department of State by creating a School of Diplomacy at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center; (4) commends to future generations Shultz's example as a patriot and public servant both in war and in the pursuit of a more peaceful, prosperous, and cooperative world order; (5) extends its deepest condolences and sympathy to the family of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz; and (6) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS745 | null | 2,304 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Inhofe, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 61 Whereas, on December 13, 1920, the Honorable George Pratt Shultz was born in New York City as the only child of Margaret Lennox and Birl Earl Shultz; Whereas, upon graduating cum laude from Princeton University with a major in economics and a minor in public and international affairs in 1942, Shultz joined the Marines and nobly served his country as a captain with a Marine anti- aircraft unit deployed with the United States Army's 81st Infantry Division to the Pacific for the bitterly fought Battle of Angaur in the Palau Islands; Whereas, following the war, Shultz earned a doctorate in industrial economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught in the Department of Economics and at the Sloan School of Management until taking leave to serve on President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors; Whereas Shultz then went on to join the University of Chicago as Dean of the Graduate School of Business from 1962 until 1968; Whereas Shultz left academia to honorably serve our country in a number of critical economic positions, including as Secretary of Labor, the country's first Director of a modernized Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Secretary of Treasury; Whereas, during his time at the Department of the Treasury, Shultz co-founded the ``Library Group'', which helped coordinate follow-up to the abolishment of the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system and develop what would eventually become the ``Group of Seven'' or the ``G-7'', an important forum that has strengthened international economic and security policy by regularly bringing together the world's advanced economies to assess global trends and tackle pervasive and crosscutting issues; Whereas Shultz served as Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989 and was directly involved in bringing Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan together through a process based upon mutual and verifiable trust, thereby allowing them to reach agreement on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), which eliminated ground- launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, and to initiate negotiations to reduce long-range strategic nuclear arms; Whereas, during his tenure as Secretary of State, Shultz had a strong and mutually supportive relationship with the career Foreign Service, which he relied heavily on to advance key international initiatives and attain foreign policy achievements of the Reagan Administration; Whereas Shultz recognized the need to better prepare a new generation of diplomatic service officers, whether Foreign or Civil Service, and ensured the creation of what became the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC), thus expanding short-term skills training to hundreds of ever more diverse Department of State and Federal Government personnel; Whereas, upon returning to private life in 1989, Shultz became a Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, wrote and edited several books, and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, along with more than a dozen other awards and prizes; Whereas, in his later years, Shultz passionately advocated for a world without nuclear weapons; and Whereas Shultz recently called for the strengthening and modernization of the professional education and training of our career diplomats: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) honors the life, achievements, and legacy of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz; (2) celebrates the statesmanship that consistently characterized Shultz's life; (3) acknowledges Shultz's published concern for rebuilding and strengthening American diplomacy and its home institution, the Department of State by creating a School of Diplomacy at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center; (4) commends to future generations Shultz's example as a patriot and public servant both in war and in the pursuit of a more peaceful, prosperous, and cooperative world order; (5) extends its deepest condolences and sympathy to the family of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz; and (6) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS745 | null | 2,305 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Inhofe, and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 61 Whereas, on December 13, 1920, the Honorable George Pratt Shultz was born in New York City as the only child of Margaret Lennox and Birl Earl Shultz; Whereas, upon graduating cum laude from Princeton University with a major in economics and a minor in public and international affairs in 1942, Shultz joined the Marines and nobly served his country as a captain with a Marine anti- aircraft unit deployed with the United States Army's 81st Infantry Division to the Pacific for the bitterly fought Battle of Angaur in the Palau Islands; Whereas, following the war, Shultz earned a doctorate in industrial economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught in the Department of Economics and at the Sloan School of Management until taking leave to serve on President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors; Whereas Shultz then went on to join the University of Chicago as Dean of the Graduate School of Business from 1962 until 1968; Whereas Shultz left academia to honorably serve our country in a number of critical economic positions, including as Secretary of Labor, the country's first Director of a modernized Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Secretary of Treasury; Whereas, during his time at the Department of the Treasury, Shultz co-founded the ``Library Group'', which helped coordinate follow-up to the abolishment of the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system and develop what would eventually become the ``Group of Seven'' or the ``G-7'', an important forum that has strengthened international economic and security policy by regularly bringing together the world's advanced economies to assess global trends and tackle pervasive and crosscutting issues; Whereas Shultz served as Secretary of State from 1982 to 1989 and was directly involved in bringing Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan together through a process based upon mutual and verifiable trust, thereby allowing them to reach agreement on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), which eliminated ground- launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, and to initiate negotiations to reduce long-range strategic nuclear arms; Whereas, during his tenure as Secretary of State, Shultz had a strong and mutually supportive relationship with the career Foreign Service, which he relied heavily on to advance key international initiatives and attain foreign policy achievements of the Reagan Administration; Whereas Shultz recognized the need to better prepare a new generation of diplomatic service officers, whether Foreign or Civil Service, and ensured the creation of what became the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center (NFATC), thus expanding short-term skills training to hundreds of ever more diverse Department of State and Federal Government personnel; Whereas, upon returning to private life in 1989, Shultz became a Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, wrote and edited several books, and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, along with more than a dozen other awards and prizes; Whereas, in his later years, Shultz passionately advocated for a world without nuclear weapons; and Whereas Shultz recently called for the strengthening and modernization of the professional education and training of our career diplomats: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) honors the life, achievements, and legacy of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz; (2) celebrates the statesmanship that consistently characterized Shultz's life; (3) acknowledges Shultz's published concern for rebuilding and strengthening American diplomacy and its home institution, the Department of State by creating a School of Diplomacy at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center; (4) commends to future generations Shultz's example as a patriot and public servant both in war and in the pursuit of a more peaceful, prosperous, and cooperative world order; (5) extends its deepest condolences and sympathy to the family of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz; and (6) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable George Pratt Shultz. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-13-pt1-PgS745 | null | 2,306 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | rules of the committee on house administration for the 117th congress House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration Washington, DC, February 15, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I submit the Rules of the Committee on House Administration for the 117th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. On February 10, 2021, the Committee met in open session and adopted these Rules by voice vote, a quorum being present. Sincerely, Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson. Attachment. Adopted February 10, 2021 Rule No. 1--General Provisions (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day is a privileged motion in the Committee. (b) The Committee is authorized at any time to conduct such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and, subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by clause 6 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, to incur expenses (including travel expenses) in connection therewith. (c) The Committee is authorized to have printed and bound testimony and other data presented at hearings held by the Committee, and to make such information available to the public. All costs of stenographic services and transcripts in connection with any meeting or hearing of the Committee shall be paid from the appropriate House account. (d) The Committee shall submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a report on the activities of the committee under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (e) The Committee's rules shall be made publicly available in electronic form and published in the Congressional Record not later than 60 days after the Chairperson is elected in each odd-numbered year. Rule No. 2--Regular and Special Meetings (a)(l) The regular meeting date of the Committee shall be the second Tuesday of every month when the House is in session in accordance with clause 2(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. If the House is not in session on the second Tuesday of a month, the regular meeting date shall be the third Tuesday of that month. (2) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairperson of the full Committee as the Chairperson considers 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 Rules of the House of Representatives. (3) The determination of the business to be considered at each meeting shall be made by the Chairperson subject to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. A regularly scheduled meeting may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chairperson, there is no need for the meeting. (b) If the Chairperson is not present at any meeting of the Committee, the ranking member of the majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting. (c) The Chairperson, in the case of meetings to be conducted by the Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any meeting to be conducted on any measure or matter. Such meeting shall not commence earlier than the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which members have notice thereof. If the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines that there is good cause to begin the meeting sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present, the Chairperson shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. The announcement shall promptly be made publicly available in electronic form and published in the Daily Digest. (d) The Chairperson, in the case of meetings to be conducted by the Committee shall make publicly available in electronic form the text of any legislation to be marked up at a meeting at least 24 hours before such meeting (or at the time of an announcement made within 24 hours of such meeting). This requirement shall also apply to any resolution or regulation to be considered at a meeting. Rule No. 3--Open Meetings As required by clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation of the Committee, shall be open to the public except when the Committee in open session and with a quorum 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 would violate any law or rule of the House. Provided, however, that no person other than members of the Committee, and such congressional staff and such other persons as the Committee may authorize, shall be present in any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. To the maximum extent practicable, the Chairperson shall cause to be provided audio and video coverage of each hearing or meeting that allows the public to easily listen to and view the proceedings and maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the public. Rule No. 4--Records and Rollcalls (a)(l) A record vote shall be held if requested by any member of the Committee. (2) The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee shall be made publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote. Information so available 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. (3) The Chairperson shall make publicly available in electronic form on the Committee's website 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 the text of such amendment. (b)(l) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairperson may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chairperson may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. (2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph (1), the Chairperson shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. (3) 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. (c) All Committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the member serving as Chairperson, and such records shall be the property of the House and all members of the House shall have access thereto. (d) House records of the Committee which are at the National Archives shall be made available pursuant to rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Chairperson shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision to withhold a record pursuant to the rule, and shall present the matter to the Committee upon written request of any Committee member. (e) To the maximum extent feasible, the Committee shall make its publications available in electronic form. Rule No. 5--Proxies No vote by any member in the Committee may be cast by proxy. Rule No. 6--Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(l) of this paragraph)-- (1) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings; and (2) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other materials as it deems necessary, including materials in electronic form. The Chairperson, or any member designated by the Chairperson, may administer oaths to any witness. (b)(l) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairperson of the full Committee, 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. (2) In addition, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities, when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority of the Committee being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairperson or by any member designated by the Committee. (3) At least two business days before issuing any subpoena pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Chairperson shall consult with the ranking minority member regarding the authorization and issuance of such subpoena, and the Chairperson shall provide a full copy of the proposed subpoena, including any proposed document schedule, at that time. (4) The requirements of paragraph (3) may be waived in the event of an exigent circumstance that does not reasonably allow for advance written notice. Rule No. 7--Quorums No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. For the purposes of taking any action other than reporting any measure, issuance of a subpoena pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) of the Rules of the Committee, closing meetings, promulgating Committee orders, or changing the rules of the Committee, one-third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum. Rule No. 8--Amendments Any amendment offered to any pending legislation before the Committee must be made available in written form when requested by any member of the Committee. If such amendment is not available in written form when requested, the Chairperson will allow an appropriate period of time for the provision thereof. Rule No. 9--Hearing Procedures (a) The Chairperson shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present, the Chairperson shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date, and the announcement shall be published promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic form. (b) Unless excused by the Chairperson, each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the clerk of the Committee, at least 48 hours in advance of their appearance, a written statement of their proposed testimony and shall limit their oral presentation to a summary of their statement. (c) When any hearing is conducted by the Committee upon any measure or matter, the minority party members on the Committee shall be entitled, upon request to the Chairperson by a majority of those minority members before the completion of such hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearings thereon. (d) All other members of the Committee may have the privilege of sitting with any subcommittee during its hearing or deliberations and may participate in such hearings or deliberations, but no member who is not a member of the subcommittee shall count for a quorum or offer any motion or amendment or vote on any matter before the subcommittee. (e) Committee members may question witnesses only when they have been recognized by the Chairperson for that purpose, and only for a five-minute period until all members present have had an opportunity to question a witness. The five-minute period for questioning a witness by any one member can be extended as provided by clause 2(j) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The questioning of a witness in Committee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairperson, followed by the ranking minority member and all other members alternating between the majority and minority. In recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairperson shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to minority members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the members of the majority. The Chairperson may accomplish this by recognizing two majority members for each minority member recognized. (f) The following additional rules shall apply to hearings of the Committee as applicable: (1) The Chairperson at a hearing shall announce in an opening statement the subject of the investigation. (2) A copy of the Committee rules and this clause shall be made available to each witness as provided by clause 2(k)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights. (4) The Chairperson may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee may cite the offender to the House for contempt. (5) If the Committee determines that evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, it shall-- (A) afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness; (B) receive such evidence or testimony in executive session; and (C) receive and dispose of requests from such person to subpoena additional witnesses. (6) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, the Chairperson shall receive, and the Committee shall dispose of, requests to subpoena additional witnesses. (7) No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be released or used in public sessions without the consent of the Committee. (8) In the discretion of the Committee, witnesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The Committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing. (9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of their testimony given at a public session or, if given at an executive session, when authorized by the Committee. Rule No. 10--Procedures for Reporting Measures or Matters (a)(l) It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure approved by the Committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. (2) In any event, the report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by the Committee shall be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) after the day on which there has been filed with the clerk of the Committee a written request, signed by a majority of the members of the Committee, for the reporting of that measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the clerk of the Committee shall transmit immediately to the Chairperson notice of the filing of that request. (b)(l) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. (2) 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 the Committee report on the measure or matter. (c) The report of the Committee on a measure or matter which has been approved by the Committee shall include the matters required by clause 3(c) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (d)(l) If, at the time any measure or matter is ordered reported by the Committee, any member of the Committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views for inclusion in the report, members shall be entitled to not less than two additional calendar days after the day of such notice, commencing on the day on which the measure or matter(s) was approved, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, in which to file such views, in writing and signed by that member, with the clerk of the Committee. (2) All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. (3) The report of the Comittee upon that measure or matter shall be printed in a single volume which-- (A) shall include all supplemental, minority, additional or dissenting views, in the form submitted, by the time of the filing of the report, and (B) shall bear upon its cover a recital that any such supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views (and any material submitted under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives) are included as part of the report. This subparagraph does not preclude-- (i) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report unless timely request for the opportunity to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views has been made as provided under clause 2(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives; or (ii) the filing of any supplemental report upon any measure or matter which may be required for the correction of any technical error in a previous report made by the Committee upon that measure or matter. (4) shall, when appropriate, contain the documents required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (e) The Chairperson, following consultation with the ranking minority member, is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to going to conference with the Senate, whenever the Chairperson considers it appropriate. (f) If hearings have been held on any such measure or matter so reported, the Committee shall make every reasonable effort to have such hearings published and available to the members of the House prior to the consideration of such measure or matter in the House. (g) The Chairperson may designate any majority member of the Committee to act as floor manager of a bill or resolution during its consideration in the House. Rule No. 11--Committee Oversight (a) The Committee shall conduct oversight of matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee in accordance with clauses 2 and 4(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) Not later than March 1 of the first session of a Congress and in accordance with clause 2(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee shall prepare an oversight plan for that Congress. Rule No. 12--Review of Continuing Programs; Budget Act Provisions (a) The Committee shall, in its consideration of all bills and joint resolutions of a public character within its jurisdiction, ensure that appropriation for continuing programs and activities of the Federal Government will be made annually to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the nature, requirement, and objectives of the programs and activities involved. For the purposes of this paragraph a Government agency includes the organizational units of government listed in clause 4(e) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) The Committee shall review, from time to time, each continuing program within its jurisdiction for which appropriations are not made annually in order to ascertain whether such program could be modified so that appropriations therefore would be made annually. (c) The Committee shall, in accordance with clause 4(f)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, submit to the Committee on the Budget (1) its views and estimates with respect to all matters to be set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget for the ensuing fiscal year which are within its jurisdiction or functions, and (2) an estimate of the total amounts of new budget authority, and budget outlays resulting there from, to be provided or authorized in all bills and resolutions within its jurisdiction which it intends to be effective during that fiscal year. (d) Whenever the Committee is directed in a concurrent resolution on the budget to determine and recommend changes in laws, bills, or resolutions under the reconciliation process it shall promptly make such determination and recommendations, and report a reconciliation bill or resolution (or both) to the House or submit such recommendations to the Committee on the Budget, in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Rule No. 13--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings Whenever any hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means as provided in clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, subject to the limitations therein. Rule No. 14--Committee Staff The staff of the Committee on House Administration shall be appointed as follows: (a) The staff shall be appointed by the Chairperson except as provided in paragraph (b), and may be removed by the Chairperson, and shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chairperson; (b) All staff provided to the minority party members of the Committee shall be appointed by the ranking minority member, and may be removed by the ranking minority member of the Committee, and shall work under the general supervision and direction of such member; (c) The appointment of all professional staff shall be subject to the approval of the Committee as provided by, and subject to the provisions of, clause 9 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives; (d) The Chairperson shall fix the compensation of all staff of the Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority member regarding any minority party staff, within the budget approved for such purposes for the Committee. Rule No. 15--Travel of Members and Staff (a) Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have been approved, the provisions of this rule shall govern travel of Committee members and staff. Travel for any member or any staff member shall be paid only upon the prior authorization of the Chairperson or their designee. Travel may be authorized by the Chairperson for any member and any staff member in connection with the attendance at hearings conducted by the Committee and meetings, conferences, and investigations which involve activities or subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to the Chairperson in writing the following: (1) The purpose of the travel; (2) The dates during which the travel will occur; (3) The locations to be visited and the length of time to be spent in each; and (4) The names of members and staff seeking authorization. (b)(l) In the case of travel outside the United States of members and staff of the Committee for the purpose of conducting hearings, investigations, studies, or attending meetings and conferences involving activities or subject matter under the legislative assignment of the committee, prior authorization must be obtained from the Chairperson. Before such authorization is given, there shall be submitted to the Chairperson, in writing, a request for such authorization. Each request, which shall be filed in a manner that allows for a reasonable period of time for review before such travel is scheduled to begin, shall include the following: (A) the purpose of the travel; (B) the dates during which the travel will occur; (C) the names of the countries to be visited and the length of time to be spent in each; (D) an agenda of anticipated activities for each country for which travel is authorized together with a description of the purpose to be served and the areas of committee jurisdiction involved; and (E) the names of members and staff for whom authorization is sought. (2) At the conclusion of any hearing, investigation, study, meeting, or conference for which travel outside the United States has been authorized pursuant to this rule, members and staff attending meetings or conferences shall submit a written report to the Chairperson covering the activities and other pertinent observations or information gained as a result of such travel. (c) Members and staff of the Committee performing authorized travel on official business shall be governed by applicable laws, resolutions, or regulations of the House and of the Committee on House Administration pertaining to such travel. Rule No. 16--Staff Deposition Authority The Chairperson may authorize the staff of the Committee to conduct depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and subject to any regulations issued pursuant thereto. Rule No. 17-- Number and Jurisdiction of Subcommittees (a) There shall be one standing subcommittee, with party ratios of members as indicated. The subcommittee shall have jurisdiction as stated by these rules, may conduct oversight over such subject matter, and may consider such legislation as may be referred to them by the Chairperson. The name and jurisdiction of the subcommittee shall be: (1) Subcommittee on Elections (3/1)--Matters relating to voting rights issues and such other matters as may be referred to the subcommittee. 1(b) The Chairperson may establish and appoint members, consistent with the ratio between majority and minority members serving on the Subcommittee on Elections, to serve on task forces, panels, special, or select subcommittees of the Committee, to perform specific functions for limited periods of time, as the Chairperson deems appropriate. Rule No. 18--Referral of Legislation to Subcommittees The Chairperson may refer legislation or other matters to the subcommittee as the Chairperson considers appropriate. The Chairperson may discharge the subcommittee of any matter referred to it. Rule No. 19--Powers and Duties of Subcommittees The subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence and report to the full committee on all matters referred to it. The subcommittee shall not meet during any full Committee meeting or hearing. Rule No. 20--Other Procedures and Regulations The Chairperson 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. Rule No. 21--Designation of Clerk of the Committee For the purposes of these Rules and the Rules of the House of Representatives, the staff director of the Committee shall act as the clerk of the Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-15-pt1-PgH508-4 | null | 2,307 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | rules of the committee on house administration for the 117th congress House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration Washington, DC, February 15, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I submit the Rules of the Committee on House Administration for the 117th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. On February 10, 2021, the Committee met in open session and adopted these Rules by voice vote, a quorum being present. Sincerely, Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson. Attachment. Adopted February 10, 2021 Rule No. 1--General Provisions (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day is a privileged motion in the Committee. (b) The Committee is authorized at any time to conduct such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and, subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by clause 6 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, to incur expenses (including travel expenses) in connection therewith. (c) The Committee is authorized to have printed and bound testimony and other data presented at hearings held by the Committee, and to make such information available to the public. All costs of stenographic services and transcripts in connection with any meeting or hearing of the Committee shall be paid from the appropriate House account. (d) The Committee shall submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a report on the activities of the committee under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (e) The Committee's rules shall be made publicly available in electronic form and published in the Congressional Record not later than 60 days after the Chairperson is elected in each odd-numbered year. Rule No. 2--Regular and Special Meetings (a)(l) The regular meeting date of the Committee shall be the second Tuesday of every month when the House is in session in accordance with clause 2(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. If the House is not in session on the second Tuesday of a month, the regular meeting date shall be the third Tuesday of that month. (2) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairperson of the full Committee as the Chairperson considers 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 Rules of the House of Representatives. (3) The determination of the business to be considered at each meeting shall be made by the Chairperson subject to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. A regularly scheduled meeting may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chairperson, there is no need for the meeting. (b) If the Chairperson is not present at any meeting of the Committee, the ranking member of the majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting. (c) The Chairperson, in the case of meetings to be conducted by the Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any meeting to be conducted on any measure or matter. Such meeting shall not commence earlier than the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which members have notice thereof. If the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines that there is good cause to begin the meeting sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present, the Chairperson shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. The announcement shall promptly be made publicly available in electronic form and published in the Daily Digest. (d) The Chairperson, in the case of meetings to be conducted by the Committee shall make publicly available in electronic form the text of any legislation to be marked up at a meeting at least 24 hours before such meeting (or at the time of an announcement made within 24 hours of such meeting). This requirement shall also apply to any resolution or regulation to be considered at a meeting. Rule No. 3--Open Meetings As required by clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation of the Committee, shall be open to the public except when the Committee in open session and with a quorum 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 would violate any law or rule of the House. Provided, however, that no person other than members of the Committee, and such congressional staff and such other persons as the Committee may authorize, shall be present in any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. To the maximum extent practicable, the Chairperson shall cause to be provided audio and video coverage of each hearing or meeting that allows the public to easily listen to and view the proceedings and maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the public. Rule No. 4--Records and Rollcalls (a)(l) A record vote shall be held if requested by any member of the Committee. (2) The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee shall be made publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote. Information so available 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. (3) The Chairperson shall make publicly available in electronic form on the Committee's website 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 the text of such amendment. (b)(l) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairperson may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chairperson may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. (2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph (1), the Chairperson shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. (3) 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. (c) All Committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the member serving as Chairperson, and such records shall be the property of the House and all members of the House shall have access thereto. (d) House records of the Committee which are at the National Archives shall be made available pursuant to rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Chairperson shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision to withhold a record pursuant to the rule, and shall present the matter to the Committee upon written request of any Committee member. (e) To the maximum extent feasible, the Committee shall make its publications available in electronic form. Rule No. 5--Proxies No vote by any member in the Committee may be cast by proxy. Rule No. 6--Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(l) of this paragraph)-- (1) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings; and (2) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other materials as it deems necessary, including materials in electronic form. The Chairperson, or any member designated by the Chairperson, may administer oaths to any witness. (b)(l) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairperson of the full Committee, 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. (2) In addition, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities, when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority of the Committee being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairperson or by any member designated by the Committee. (3) At least two business days before issuing any subpoena pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Chairperson shall consult with the ranking minority member regarding the authorization and issuance of such subpoena, and the Chairperson shall provide a full copy of the proposed subpoena, including any proposed document schedule, at that time. (4) The requirements of paragraph (3) may be waived in the event of an exigent circumstance that does not reasonably allow for advance written notice. Rule No. 7--Quorums No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. For the purposes of taking any action other than reporting any measure, issuance of a subpoena pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) of the Rules of the Committee, closing meetings, promulgating Committee orders, or changing the rules of the Committee, one-third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum. Rule No. 8--Amendments Any amendment offered to any pending legislation before the Committee must be made available in written form when requested by any member of the Committee. If such amendment is not available in written form when requested, the Chairperson will allow an appropriate period of time for the provision thereof. Rule No. 9--Hearing Procedures (a) The Chairperson shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present, the Chairperson shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date, and the announcement shall be published promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic form. (b) Unless excused by the Chairperson, each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the clerk of the Committee, at least 48 hours in advance of their appearance, a written statement of their proposed testimony and shall limit their oral presentation to a summary of their statement. (c) When any hearing is conducted by the Committee upon any measure or matter, the minority party members on the Committee shall be entitled, upon request to the Chairperson by a majority of those minority members before the completion of such hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearings thereon. (d) All other members of the Committee may have the privilege of sitting with any subcommittee during its hearing or deliberations and may participate in such hearings or deliberations, but no member who is not a member of the subcommittee shall count for a quorum or offer any motion or amendment or vote on any matter before the subcommittee. (e) Committee members may question witnesses only when they have been recognized by the Chairperson for that purpose, and only for a five-minute period until all members present have had an opportunity to question a witness. The five-minute period for questioning a witness by any one member can be extended as provided by clause 2(j) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The questioning of a witness in Committee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairperson, followed by the ranking minority member and all other members alternating between the majority and minority. In recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairperson shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to minority members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the members of the majority. The Chairperson may accomplish this by recognizing two majority members for each minority member recognized. (f) The following additional rules shall apply to hearings of the Committee as applicable: (1) The Chairperson at a hearing shall announce in an opening statement the subject of the investigation. (2) A copy of the Committee rules and this clause shall be made available to each witness as provided by clause 2(k)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights. (4) The Chairperson may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee may cite the offender to the House for contempt. (5) If the Committee determines that evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, it shall-- (A) afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness; (B) receive such evidence or testimony in executive session; and (C) receive and dispose of requests from such person to subpoena additional witnesses. (6) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, the Chairperson shall receive, and the Committee shall dispose of, requests to subpoena additional witnesses. (7) No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be released or used in public sessions without the consent of the Committee. (8) In the discretion of the Committee, witnesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The Committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing. (9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of their testimony given at a public session or, if given at an executive session, when authorized by the Committee. Rule No. 10--Procedures for Reporting Measures or Matters (a)(l) It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure approved by the Committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. (2) In any event, the report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by the Committee shall be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) after the day on which there has been filed with the clerk of the Committee a written request, signed by a majority of the members of the Committee, for the reporting of that measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the clerk of the Committee shall transmit immediately to the Chairperson notice of the filing of that request. (b)(l) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. (2) 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 the Committee report on the measure or matter. (c) The report of the Committee on a measure or matter which has been approved by the Committee shall include the matters required by clause 3(c) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (d)(l) If, at the time any measure or matter is ordered reported by the Committee, any member of the Committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views for inclusion in the report, members shall be entitled to not less than two additional calendar days after the day of such notice, commencing on the day on which the measure or matter(s) was approved, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, in which to file such views, in writing and signed by that member, with the clerk of the Committee. (2) All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. (3) The report of the Comittee upon that measure or matter shall be printed in a single volume which-- (A) shall include all supplemental, minority, additional or dissenting views, in the form submitted, by the time of the filing of the report, and (B) shall bear upon its cover a recital that any such supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views (and any material submitted under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives) are included as part of the report. This subparagraph does not preclude-- (i) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report unless timely request for the opportunity to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views has been made as provided under clause 2(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives; or (ii) the filing of any supplemental report upon any measure or matter which may be required for the correction of any technical error in a previous report made by the Committee upon that measure or matter. (4) shall, when appropriate, contain the documents required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (e) The Chairperson, following consultation with the ranking minority member, is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to going to conference with the Senate, whenever the Chairperson considers it appropriate. (f) If hearings have been held on any such measure or matter so reported, the Committee shall make every reasonable effort to have such hearings published and available to the members of the House prior to the consideration of such measure or matter in the House. (g) The Chairperson may designate any majority member of the Committee to act as floor manager of a bill or resolution during its consideration in the House. Rule No. 11--Committee Oversight (a) The Committee shall conduct oversight of matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee in accordance with clauses 2 and 4(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) Not later than March 1 of the first session of a Congress and in accordance with clause 2(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee shall prepare an oversight plan for that Congress. Rule No. 12--Review of Continuing Programs; Budget Act Provisions (a) The Committee shall, in its consideration of all bills and joint resolutions of a public character within its jurisdiction, ensure that appropriation for continuing programs and activities of the Federal Government will be made annually to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the nature, requirement, and objectives of the programs and activities involved. For the purposes of this paragraph a Government agency includes the organizational units of government listed in clause 4(e) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) The Committee shall review, from time to time, each continuing program within its jurisdiction for which appropriations are not made annually in order to ascertain whether such program could be modified so that appropriations therefore would be made annually. (c) The Committee shall, in accordance with clause 4(f)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, submit to the Committee on the Budget (1) its views and estimates with respect to all matters to be set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget for the ensuing fiscal year which are within its jurisdiction or functions, and (2) an estimate of the total amounts of new budget authority, and budget outlays resulting there from, to be provided or authorized in all bills and resolutions within its jurisdiction which it intends to be effective during that fiscal year. (d) Whenever the Committee is directed in a concurrent resolution on the budget to determine and recommend changes in laws, bills, or resolutions under the reconciliation process it shall promptly make such determination and recommendations, and report a reconciliation bill or resolution (or both) to the House or submit such recommendations to the Committee on the Budget, in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Rule No. 13--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings Whenever any hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means as provided in clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, subject to the limitations therein. Rule No. 14--Committee Staff The staff of the Committee on House Administration shall be appointed as follows: (a) The staff shall be appointed by the Chairperson except as provided in paragraph (b), and may be removed by the Chairperson, and shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chairperson; (b) All staff provided to the minority party members of the Committee shall be appointed by the ranking minority member, and may be removed by the ranking minority member of the Committee, and shall work under the general supervision and direction of such member; (c) The appointment of all professional staff shall be subject to the approval of the Committee as provided by, and subject to the provisions of, clause 9 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives; (d) The Chairperson shall fix the compensation of all staff of the Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority member regarding any minority party staff, within the budget approved for such purposes for the Committee. Rule No. 15--Travel of Members and Staff (a) Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have been approved, the provisions of this rule shall govern travel of Committee members and staff. Travel for any member or any staff member shall be paid only upon the prior authorization of the Chairperson or their designee. Travel may be authorized by the Chairperson for any member and any staff member in connection with the attendance at hearings conducted by the Committee and meetings, conferences, and investigations which involve activities or subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to the Chairperson in writing the following: (1) The purpose of the travel; (2) The dates during which the travel will occur; (3) The locations to be visited and the length of time to be spent in each; and (4) The names of members and staff seeking authorization. (b)(l) In the case of travel outside the United States of members and staff of the Committee for the purpose of conducting hearings, investigations, studies, or attending meetings and conferences involving activities or subject matter under the legislative assignment of the committee, prior authorization must be obtained from the Chairperson. Before such authorization is given, there shall be submitted to the Chairperson, in writing, a request for such authorization. Each request, which shall be filed in a manner that allows for a reasonable period of time for review before such travel is scheduled to begin, shall include the following: (A) the purpose of the travel; (B) the dates during which the travel will occur; (C) the names of the countries to be visited and the length of time to be spent in each; (D) an agenda of anticipated activities for each country for which travel is authorized together with a description of the purpose to be served and the areas of committee jurisdiction involved; and (E) the names of members and staff for whom authorization is sought. (2) At the conclusion of any hearing, investigation, study, meeting, or conference for which travel outside the United States has been authorized pursuant to this rule, members and staff attending meetings or conferences shall submit a written report to the Chairperson covering the activities and other pertinent observations or information gained as a result of such travel. (c) Members and staff of the Committee performing authorized travel on official business shall be governed by applicable laws, resolutions, or regulations of the House and of the Committee on House Administration pertaining to such travel. Rule No. 16--Staff Deposition Authority The Chairperson may authorize the staff of the Committee to conduct depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and subject to any regulations issued pursuant thereto. Rule No. 17-- Number and Jurisdiction of Subcommittees (a) There shall be one standing subcommittee, with party ratios of members as indicated. The subcommittee shall have jurisdiction as stated by these rules, may conduct oversight over such subject matter, and may consider such legislation as may be referred to them by the Chairperson. The name and jurisdiction of the subcommittee shall be: (1) Subcommittee on Elections (3/1)--Matters relating to voting rights issues and such other matters as may be referred to the subcommittee. 1(b) The Chairperson may establish and appoint members, consistent with the ratio between majority and minority members serving on the Subcommittee on Elections, to serve on task forces, panels, special, or select subcommittees of the Committee, to perform specific functions for limited periods of time, as the Chairperson deems appropriate. Rule No. 18--Referral of Legislation to Subcommittees The Chairperson may refer legislation or other matters to the subcommittee as the Chairperson considers appropriate. The Chairperson may discharge the subcommittee of any matter referred to it. Rule No. 19--Powers and Duties of Subcommittees The subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence and report to the full committee on all matters referred to it. The subcommittee shall not meet during any full Committee meeting or hearing. Rule No. 20--Other Procedures and Regulations The Chairperson 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. Rule No. 21--Designation of Clerk of the Committee For the purposes of these Rules and the Rules of the House of Representatives, the staff director of the Committee shall act as the clerk of the Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-15-pt1-PgH508-4 | null | 2,308 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | rules of the committee on science, space, and technology for the 117th congress House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC, February 22, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to clause (2)(a)(2) of House Rule XI, I hereby submit the Rules of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for the 117th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. These Committee Rules were adopted in an open meeting of the Committee on February 18, 2021, by voice vote. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Rule I. General (a) Application of Rules. (1) The Rules of the House of Representatives (``House Rules'') are the rules of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and its Subcommittees with the specific additions thereto contained in these rules. (2) Except where the term ``Subcommittee'' is specifically referred to, the following rules shall apply to the Committee and its Subcommittees as well as to the respective Chairs and Ranking Minority Members. (b) Other Procedures. The Chair of the Committee, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, may establish such other procedures and take such actions as may be necessary to carry out these rules or to facilitate the effective operation of the Committee. (c) Use of Hearing Rooms. In consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, the Chair of the Committee shall establish guidelines for the use of Committee hearing rooms. Rule II. Regular, Additional, and Special Meetings (a) Regular Meetings. The regular meeting day of the Committee for the conduct of its business shall be on the first Wednesday of each month, if the House is in session. If the House is not in session on that day, then the Committee shall meet on the next Wednesday of such month on which the House is in session, or at another practicable time as determined by the Chair. (1) A regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chair, there is no need for the meeting. (2) The Chair may call and convene, when the Chair considers it necessary and in accordance with the notice requirements contained in these rules, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. (b) Bills and Subjects to be Considered. (1) The Chair shall announce the date, place, and subject matter of any Committee meeting, which may not commence earlier than the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which Members have notice thereof, unless the Chair, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, or the Committee by majority vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business, determines there is good cause to begin the meeting sooner, in which case the Chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (2) At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of a meeting for the markup of legislation (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day), the Chair shall cause the text of such legislation to be made publicly available in electronic form. (3) To the maximum extent practicable, amendments to a measure or matter shall be submitted in writing or electronically to the designee of both the Chair and Ranking Minority Member at least 24 hours prior to the consideration of the measure or matter, and the Chair may oppose any amendment not so submitted. (c) Open Meetings. Meetings for the transaction of business and hearings of the Committee shall be open to the public or closed in accordance with the House Rules. (d) Quorums. A majority of the Committee shall form a quorum, except that two Members shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence, and one third of the Members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than for which the presence of a majority of the Committee is otherwise required. If the Chair is not present at any meeting of the Committee or Subcommittee, the Vice Chair on the Committee who is present shall preside at the meeting, unless another Member of the Committee is designated by the Chair. (e) Postponement of Proceedings. (1) Pursuant to clause 2(h)(4) of House Rule XI, the Chair may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting an amendment. The Chair may resume proceedings on a postponed vote at any time after reasonable notice. (2) 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. (f) Time for Statements and Debate. (1) Insofar as is practicable, the Chair, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, shall limit the total time of opening statements by Members at a Committee meeting to no more than ten minutes, the time to be divided equally between the Chair and Ranking Minority Member, except in the case of joint Subcommittee hearings, in which case the total time of opening statements by Members at such joint hearing shall be no more than twenty minutes, the time to be divided equally between the Chairs and Ranking Minority Members. When requested, ex officio Members of any Subcommittee shall also be recognized at a Subcommittee hearing for five minutes each to present an opening statement. (2) The time any one Member may address the Committee on any bill, amendment, motion, or other matter under consideration by the Committee will be limited to five minutes, and then only when the Member has been recognized by the Chair. This time limit may be waived by the Chair pursuant to unanimous consent. (g) Requests for Recorded Vote. A record vote of the Committee shall be provided on any question before the Committee upon the request of three or more Members or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one Member. (h) Transcripts. Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be published in the same manner as hearings before the Committee, and shall be included as part of the legislative report unless waived by the Chair of the Committee. (i) Motion to Go to Conference. Without further action of the Committee, the Chair is authorized to offer a motion under clause 1 of House Rule XXII whenever the Chair considers it appropriate. Rule III. Hearings (a) Notice of Hearings. (1) The Chair shall publicly announce the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by the Committee on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chair, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (2) The Chair shall publicly announce a list of witnesses to testify at a hearing as soon as a complete list of witnesses, including those to be called by the minority, is compiled. When practicable, the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member will seek to have a complete list of witnesses compiled at, or as soon as practicable after, the time that the hearing is publicly announced. (b) Witnesses. (1) Insofar as is practicable, no later than 48 hours in advance of his or her appearance, each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file, in printed copy and in electronic form, a written statement of his or her proposed testimony and a curriculum vitae. (2) Each witness shall limit his or her presentation to a five minute summary, however additional time may be granted by the Chair when appropriate. (3) The Chair, or any Member of the Committee designated by the Chair, may administer oaths to witnesses before the Committee. (4) Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee on any measure or matter, the Minority Members of the Committee shall be entitled, upon request to the Chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the Minority to testify with respect to the measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon. (5) In the case of a witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed testimony shall include: a. A curriculum vitae; b. A disclosure of any Federal grants or contracts, or contracts, grants, or payments 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 the hearing; and, c. A disclosure of whether the witness is a 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. Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy 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. (c) Questioning of Witnesses. (1) The right to interrogate a witness before the Committee shall alternate between Majority and Minority Members of the Committee. Each Member shall be limited to five minutes in the interrogation of witnesses. No Member may be recognized for a second period of interrogation until each Member present, who wishes to be recognized, has been recognized at least once. (2) Notwithstanding clause 1, upon a motion the Chair, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may: a. Designate a specified number of Members of the Committee from each party to question a witness for a period of time equally divided between the majority party and the minority party, not to exceed one hour in the aggregate; or b. Designate staff from each party to question a witness for a period of time equally divided between the majority party and the minority party, not to exceed one hour in the aggregate. (3) Members of the Committee have two weeks from the date of a hearing to submit additional questions in writing for the record to be answered by witnesses who have appeared before the Committee. The letters of transmittal and any responses thereto shall be included in the hearing record. (d) Claims of Privilege. Claims of common-law privileges made by witnesses in hearings, or by interviewees or deponents in investigations or inquiries, are applicable only at the discretion of the Chair, subject to appeal to the Committee. (e) Publication of Transcripts. The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the Committee, when it is decided they will be printed, shall be published in substantially verbatim form, with the material requested for the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members, whose comments are to be published as part of a Committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication. Any requests by those Members, staff, or witnesses to correct any errors other than errors in the transcript, or disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where the change is requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the Chair of hearings conducted jointly with another Congressional Committee, a memorandum of understanding shall be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the publication of the transcript. (f) Pertinence of Testimony. At the discretion of the Committee, brief and pertinent statements may be submitted in writing for inclusion in the record. The Committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing. Rule IV. Reports (a) Bills and resolutions approved by the Committee shall be reported by the Chair pursuant to clauses 2-4 of House Rule XIII. (b) A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to the Members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such days). (c) Every investigative or oversight report shall be approved by a majority vote of the Committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present. If at the time of approval of such a report a Member of the Committee gives notice of intent to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views that Member shall be entitled to file such views. (d) Only those investigative or oversight reports approved by a majority vote of the Committee may be ordered printed, unless otherwise required by House Rules. Rule V. Broadcasting (a) Whenever a meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation or a hearing is open to the public, that meeting or hearing shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and still photography in accordance with clause 4 of House Rule XI. (b) To the maximum extent practicable, the Committee shall provide audio and visual coverage of each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the proceedings, and maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the public. Operation and use of any Committee internet broadcast system shall be fair and nonpartisan, and in accordance with clauses 4 (b) and (f) of House Rule XI and all other applicable rules of the Committee and the House. Rule VI. Subcommittees (a) Committee Jurisdiction. The Committee shall have jurisdiction over such matters as determined by the Chair. (b) Subcommittees and Jurisdiction. There shall be five standing Subcommittees of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, with jurisdictions as follows: (1) Subcommittee on Energy. Shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: all matters relating to energy research, development, and demonstration projects therefor; commercial application of energy technology; Department of Energy research, development, and demonstration programs; Department of Energy laboratories; Department of Energy science activities; Department of Energy international research, development, and demonstration projects; energy supply activities; nuclear, solar, and renewable energy, and other advanced energy technologies; uranium supply and enrichment, and Department of Energy waste management; Department of Energy environmental management research, development, and demonstration; fossil energy research and development; clean coal technology; energy conservation research and development, including building performance, alternate fuels, distributed power systems, and industrial process improvements; pipeline research, development, and demonstration projects; energy standards; other appropriate matters as referred by the Chair; and relevant oversight. (2) Subcommittee on Environment. Shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: all matters relating to environmental research; Environmental Protection Agency research and development; environmental standards; climate change research and development; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including all activities related to weather, weather services, climate, the atmosphere, marine fisheries, and oceanic research; risk assessment activities; scientific issues related to environmental policy, including climate change; other appropriate matters as referred by the Chair; and relevant oversight. (3) Subcommittee on Research and Technology. Shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: all matters relating to science policy and science education; the Office of Science and Technology Policy; all scientific research, and scientific and engineering resources (including human resources); all matters relating to science, technology, engineering and mathematics education; intergovernmental mechanisms for research, development, and demonstration and cross-cutting programs; international scientific cooperation; National Science Foundation; university research policy, including infrastructure and overhead; university research partnerships, including those with industry; science scholarships; computing, communications, networking, and information technology; research and development relating to health, biomedical, and nutritional programs; research, development, and demonstration relating to nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology; agricultural, geological, biological and life sciences research; materials research, development, demonstration, and policy; all matters relating to competitiveness, technology, standards, and innovation; standardization of weights and measures, including technical standards, standardization, and conformity assessment; measurement, including the metric system of measurement; the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce; the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the National Technical Information Service; competitiveness, including small business competitiveness; tax, antitrust, regulatory and other legal and governmental policies related to technological development and commercialization; technology transfer, including civilian use of defense technologies; patent and intellectual property policy; international technology trade; research, development, and demonstration activities of the Department of Transportation; surface and water transportation research, development, and demonstration programs; earthquake programs and fire research programs, including those related to wildfire proliferation research and prevention; biotechnology policy; research, development, demonstration, and standards- related activities of the Department of Homeland Security; Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer; voting technologies and standards; other appropriate matters as referred by the Chair; and relevant oversight. (4) Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical research and development; national space policy, including access to space; sub-orbital access and applications; National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its contractor and government-operated labs; space commercialization, including commercial space activities relating to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce; exploration and use of outer space; international space cooperation; the National Space Council; space applications, space communications and related matters; Earth remote sensing policy; civil aviation research, development, and demonstration; research, development, and demonstration programs of the Federal Aviation Administration; space law; other appropriate matters as referred by the Chair; and relevant oversight. (5) Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Shall have general and special investigative authority on all matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee. (c) Composition of Subcommittees. (1) The Chair shall assign Members to the Subcommittees. Minority party assignments shall be made only with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. The Chair shall determine the ratio of Majority Members to Minority Members of each Subcommittee; provided that the ratio of Majority Members to Minority Members on each Subcommittee (excluding any ex officio Member) shall be no less favorable to the Majority party than the ratio for the Committee. (2) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall be ex officio Members of each Subcommittee and shall have the right to vote and be counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all matters before the Subcommittee. (d) Referral to Subcommittees. The Chair shall expeditiously refer all legislation and other matters referred to the Committee to the Subcommittee or Subcommittees of appropriate jurisdiction, unless the Chair deems consideration is to be by the Committee. Subcommittee Chairs may make requests for referral of specific matters to their Subcommittee if they believe Subcommittee jurisdictions so warrants. (e) Subcommittee Procedures and Reports. (1) Subcommittee Chairs shall set meeting dates with the concurrence of the Chair and after consultation with the other Subcommittee Chairs with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever possible. No Subcommittee may meet or hold a hearing at the same time as a meeting or hearing of the Committee without authorization from the Chair. (2) Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive testimony or evidence, mark up legislation, and report to the Committee on all matters referred to it. For matters within its jurisdiction, each Subcommittee is authorized to conduct legislative, investigative, forecasting, and general oversight hearings; to conduct inquiries into the future; and to undertake budget impact studies. (3) Each Subcommittee shall provide the Committee with copies of such records of votes taken in the Subcommittee and such other records with respect to the Subcommittee as the Chair of the Committee deems necessary to ensure compliance with the House Rules. (4) After ordering a measure or matter reported, a Subcommittee shall issue a report in such form as the Chair shall specify. To the maximum extent practicable, reports and recommendations of a Subcommittee shall not be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) from the time the report is submitted and made available to the Committee. Printed hearings thereon shall be made available, if feasible, to the Committee, except that this Rule may be waived at the discretion of the Chair after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. (5) Any Member of the Committee may have the privilege of sitting with any Subcommittee during its hearings or deliberations and may participate in such hearings or deliberations, but no Member who is not a Member of the Subcommittee shall vote on any matter before such Subcommittee, except as provided in Rule VI(c)(2). Rule VII. Vice Chairs (a) The Chair of the Committee shall designate a Member of the majority party to serve as Vice Chair of the Committee, and shall designate a Majority Member of each Subcommittee to serve as Vice Chair of the Subcommittee. Vice Chairs of the Committee and each Subcommittee serve at the pleasure of the Chair, who may at any time terminate his designation of a Member as Vice Chair and designate a different Member of the majority party to serve as Vice Chair of the Committee or relevant Subcommittee. (b) The Chair may assign duties, privileges, and responsibilities to the Vice Chairs of the Committee or the various Subcommittees. Rule VIII. Oversight and Investigations (a) The Committee shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject matter of which is within its jurisdiction, including all laws, programs, and Government activities relating to nonmilitary research and development in accordance with House Rule X. (b) Not later than March 1st of the first session of the 117th Congress, the Chair, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, shall submit the Committee's oversight plan to the Committee on Oversight and the Committee on House Administration in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of House Rule X. (c) Any investigation undertaken in the name of the Committee shall be approved by the Chair. Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted to infringe on a Subcommittee's authority to conduct general oversight of matters within its jurisdiction, short of undertaking an investigation. Rule IX. Subpoenas The power to authorize and issue subpoenas is delegated to the Chair as provided for under clause 2(m)(3)(A)(i) of House Rule XI. The Chair shall notify the Ranking Minority Member prior to issuing any subpoena under such authority. To the extent practicable, the Chair shall consult with the Ranking Minority Member at least 24 hours in advance of a subpoena being issued under such authority. Rule X. Deposition Authority The Chair may authorize the staff of the Committee to conduct depositions pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 8, 117th Congress, and subject to any regulations issued pursuant thereto. Rule XI. Committee Records (a) The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with House Rule VII. (b) The Chair shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee of any decision, pursuant to clauses 3(b)(3) or 4(b) of House Rule VII, 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. Rule XII. Official Committee Website The Chair shall maintain an official Committee website for the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities, including communicating information about the Committee's activities to Committee Members and other Members of the House. The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may maintain a similar website for the same purpose, including communicating information about the activities of the minority to Committee Members and other Members of the House. Rule XIII. Committee Budget From the amount provided to the Committee in the primary expense resolution adopted by the House of Representatives in the 117th Congress, the Chair shall designate one-third of the budget, after adjustment for the salaries of the shared administrative functions for the Clerk, Printer and Financial Administrator, under the direction of the Ranking Minority Member for the purposes of minority staff, travel expenses of minority staff and Members, and all other minority office expenses. Rule XIV. Amendments to Committee Rules The rules of the Committee may be modified, amended, or repealed, in the same manner and method as prescribed for the adoption of committee rules in clause 2 of House Rule XI, but only if written notice of the proposed change has been provided to each such Member at least 3 days before the time of the meeting at which the vote on the change occurs. Any such change in the rules of the Committee shall be published in the Congressional Record within 30 calendar days after their approval. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgH544 | null | 2,309 |
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-318. A letter from the Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Exemptions From Swap Trade Execution Requirement (RIN: 3038-AE25) 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 Agriculture. EC-319. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendments to the Pale Cyst Nematode Regulations [Docket No.: APHIS-2018-0041] (RIN: 0579-AE48) 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 Agriculture. EC-320. A letter from the OSD FRLO, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Implementation of Governmentwide Guidance for Grants and Cooperative Agreements [DOD-2016-OS- 0048] (RIN: 0790-AJ45) 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-321. A letter from the Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rule -- Consumer Leasing (Regulation M) [Docket No.: R- 1727] (RIN: 7100-AF98) 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 Financial Services. EC-322. A letter from the Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's advisory opinion -- Equal Credit Opportunity (Regulation B); Special Purpose Credit Programs 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 Financial Services. EC-323. A letter from the Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rule -- Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) Adjustment to Asset-Size Exemption Threshold 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 Financial Services. EC-324. A letter from the Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rules -- Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) [Docket No.: R-1728] (RIN: 7100-AF99) 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 Financial Services. EC-325. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Section 542(c) Housing Finance Agency Risk Sharing Program [Docket No.: FR-5881-F-02] (RIN: 2502-AJ35) 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 Financial Services. EC-326. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting the Department's FHEO Notice -- Assessing a Person's Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act [FHEO-2020-01] 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 Financial Services. EC-327. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's Major rule -- Investment Adviser Marketing [Release No.: IA-5653; File No.: S7-21-19] (RIN: 3235-AM08) received February 16, 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-328. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of section 73.202(b) FM Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Edgefield, South Carolina [MB Docket No.: 20-155] (RM-11856) 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-329. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's Major rule -- Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection [WC Docket No.: 19-195]; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program [WC Docket No.: 11- 10] received February 4, 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-330. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendments to Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations and Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations 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 Foreign Affairs. EC-331. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-560, ``Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-332. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-446, ``Sanctuary Values Temporary Amendment Act of 2020'', pursuant to Public Law 93- 198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-333. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-614, ``Coronavirus Public Health Extension Temporary Amendment Act of 2021'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-334. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-615, ``UDC PR Harris Exclusive Use Repeal Temporary Amendment Act of 2021'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-335. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-592, ``Unemployment Benefits Extension Amendment Act of 2020'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-336. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-616, ``Department of Buildings Establishment Act of 2020'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-337. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 23-617, ``Office of the Ombudsperson for Children Establishment Amendment Act of 2020'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-338. A letter from the Acting Architect, Architect of the Capitol, transmitting the semiannual report of disbursements for the operations of the Architect of the Capitol for the period of July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1868a(a); Public Law 113-76, div. I, title I, Sec. 1301(a); (128 Stat. 428) (H. Doc. No. 117-- 16); to the Committee on House Administration and ordered to be printed. EC-339. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Domestic Listing, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl [Docket No.: FWS-R1-ES-2020-0050; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] (RIN: 1018-BF01) received February 3, 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-340. A letter from the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule [Docket No.: FWS-R6-ES-2019-0026; FXES11130900000-201-FF09E22000] (RIN: 1018-BD48) 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 Natural Resources. EC-341. A letter from the Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Director for Financial Management, Office of the CFO, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation [Docket No.: 201209-0333] (RIN: 0605-AA58) 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 the Judiciary. EC-342. A letter from the Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Temporary Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2A Nonimmigrants due to the COVID-19 National Emergency: Partial Extension of Certain Flexibilities [CIS No.: 2672-20; DHS Docket No.: USCIS-USCIS- 2020-0008] (RIN: 1615-AC55) 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 the Judiciary. EC-343. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure [Docket No.: EOIR 19- 0022; Dir. Order No.: 05-2021] (RIN: 1125-AA96) 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 the Judiciary. EC-344. A letter from the Trial Attorney, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's Major interim final rule -- Civil Penalties [Docket No.: NHTSA-2021-0001] (RIN: 2127- AM32) received February 16, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-345. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties [Docket No.: 21-01] (RIN: 3072-AC85) 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 the Judiciary. EC-346. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2019-0045; Product Identifier 2018-CE-027-AD; Amendment 39-21199; AD 2020-16-15] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-347. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2019-1115; Project Identifier 2018-SW-065-AD; Amendment 39-21203; AD 2020-16-19] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-348. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Rolls- Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines [Docket No.: FAA- 2020-0265; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00131-E; Amendment 39-21201; AD 2020-16-17] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-349. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0716; Product Identifier 2019-CE-009-AD; Amendment 39-21191; AD 2020-16-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-350. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Las Vegas, NV [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0353; Airspace Docket No.: 19-AWP-19] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-351. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0104; Product Identifier 2019-NM-210-AD; Amendment 39-19923; AD 2020-12-14] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-352. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0329; Product Identifier 2020-NM-028-AD; Amendment 39-19925; AD 2020-12-16] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-353. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-24, V-97, and V-171 in the Vicinity of Lone Rock, WI [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0244; Airspace Docket No.: 19-AGL-1] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-354. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0217; Product Identifier 2019-NM-193-AD; Amendment 39-21183; AD 2020-15-20] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-355. A letter from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Addition of New Standards of Fill for Wine and Distilled Spirits; Amendment of Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverage Net Contents Labeling Regulations [Docket Nos.: TTB-2019-0004 and TTB-2019-0005; T.D. TTB-165; Re: Notice Nos.: 182, 183, and 184] (RIN: 1513-AB56 and 1513-AC45) received February 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 Ways and Means. EC-356. A letter from the Branch Chief, Disclosure Support Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Extension of Temporary Relief from the Physical Presence Requirement for Spousal Consents Under Qualified Retirement Plans [Notice 2021-03] 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 Ways and Means. EC-357. A letter from the Branch Chief, Disclosure Support Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulations -- Misdirected Direct Deposit Refunds [TD 9940] (RIN: 1545-BP41) 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 Ways and Means. EC-358. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulations -- Small Business Taxpayer Exceptions Under Sections 263A, 448, 460 and 471 [TD 9942] (RIN: 1545-BP53) 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 Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgH547 | null | 2,310 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the Senate of January 24, 1901, as amended by the order of February 6, 2019, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, will now read Washington's Farewell Address. Mr. PORTMAN, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address, as follows:To the people of the United States: Friends and Fellow-Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself, and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me asit will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me, still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals that, under circumstances in which the passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same intercourse, benefitting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of ourcountry, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the executive--and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate--of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions, that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country, that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable; liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to beencouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the mostbaneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel. Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rival-ship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world--so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them--conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take--and was bound in duty and interest to take--a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverence, and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers. Geo. Washington. United States, 19th September 1796. | 2020-01-06 | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS751-6 | null | 2,311 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Coronavirus Madam President, on another matter entirely, today, the United States will surpass more than 500,000 deaths from COVID-19--a half a million souls. How as a nation do we grapple with this enormous tragedy? How do we even comprehend a number that big or a loss that great? Do we imagine five of our largest football stadiums, filled to the max, wiped out in an instant? The city of Atlanta or Sacramento erased overnight? A 9/11 attack every single day for 169 days in a row? They say a single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. We must not let this tragic milestone wash over us like just another awful statistic stacked on top of a year's worth of awful statistics. Instead, we must treat this moment as 500,000 individual tragedies: the empty chair at the dinner table; the empty half of the bed at night that people are suffering through; the unplayed pianos and uncelebrated birthdays and funerals that were never held; the neighbors and colleagues and friends and family who died without a chance for their loved ones to hold their hands; the grandchildren, wrapped in protective gear, waving goodbye to grandparents from across the silence of a hospital room--500,000 American souls and counting. There is no way--no way--to properly account for the loss of so many lives in so short a time, but I would ask my fellow Americans to mark this terrible day by doing two simple things. First, keep in your hearts the families who have lost a loved one. Reach out to that colleague or friend, and offer sympathy and support. Stop for a moment and grieve for your fellow citizens or for someone you have lost personally. We all know someone who is gone. I learned of another one yesterday. And, second, let us strive to end this pandemic as swiftly as possible. For us in the Congress, that means moving forward with legislation to speed vaccine distribution and help the American people during this time of economic crisis, which is what the American Rescue Plan is all about, but every American can contribute by continuing to follow the guidelines and staying safe, by not losing hope or patience as we round the final corner. We will--we will--get through this, but, today, let us mourn the 500,000 Americans we have lost and commit ourselves to a future when the days of these tragic milestones are finally and firmly behind us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS756-4 | null | 2,312 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President. President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results. For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them. Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection. Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act. In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out. Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection. In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State. As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6. President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS768 | null | 2,313 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President. President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results. For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them. Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection. Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act. In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out. Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection. In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State. As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6. President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS768 | null | 2,314 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President. President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results. For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them. Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection. Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act. In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out. Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection. In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State. As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6. President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS768 | null | 2,315 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President. President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results. For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them. Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection. Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act. In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out. Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection. In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State. As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6. President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS768 | null | 2,316 |
formal | take back | null | white supremacist | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President. President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results. For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them. Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection. Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act. In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out. Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection. In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State. As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6. President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS768 | null | 2,317 |
formal | take back our country | null | white supremacist | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President. President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results. For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them. Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection. Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act. In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out. Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection. In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State. As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6. President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS768 | null | 2,318 |
formal | Three Percenters | null | white supremacist | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President. President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results. For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them. Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection. Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act. In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out. Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection. In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State. As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6. President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-22-pt1-PgS768 | null | 2,319 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgH552-7 | null | 2,320 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 208) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 500 West Main Street, Suite 102, in Tupelo, Mississippi, as the ``Colonel Carlyle `Smitty' Harris Post Office'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgH563-3 | null | 2,321 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in his inaugural address, President Biden spoke about his desire to unify. He said this: Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation. Admirable words, but words have to be met with action, and, right now, we are not seeing much of an attempt to unify from the President or his party. In fact, we are seeing pretty much the opposite. The Democrats have made it very clear they are determined to pass another COVID bill on a purely partisan basis, which is particularly disappointing because, up until now, COVID relief has been a bipartisan process. That is right. To date, Congress has passed five COVID relief bills, and every single one of those bills has been overwhelmingly bipartisan. I might add, last year, when we were in the majority, Senate Democrats made it very clear that they thought the minority should have a voice in COVID relief and that any legislation should reflect the thoughts of both parties. The Democratic leader filibustered the CARES Act--our largest COVID relief bill--multiple times until he got a version that he was satisfied with, but now that the Democrats are in the majority, apparently, they have decided that it is their way or the highway. Forget the fact that the Senate is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are determined to ensure that the Republicans and the Americans they represent don't have a voice in this bill. The Democrats' move to use reconciliation to force through a purely partisan COVID bill might be understandable--and I add ``might''--if the Republicans had made it clear that we opposed doing anything else on COVID, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The Republicans have made it very clear that we are willing to work with the Democrats on additional targeted relief. Just weeks ago, 10 Republican Senators put together a plan and met with President Biden for 2 hours to discuss a bipartisan agreement, but while the President certainly listened to them graciously, it quickly became clear that their efforts didn't matter. It didn't matter how willing the Republicans were to negotiate; the Democrats had no intention of reaching an agreement. They wanted to go it alone, and they were not going to let the Republicans stop them. In a speech a few days ago, President Biden acknowledged that people have criticized his $1.9 trillion plan but asked: What would they have me cut? What would they have me leave out? Well, let me offer a few ideas. For starters, it might be a good idea to cut out the sections of the Democrats' bill that have nothing to do with combating COVID. The Democrats are calling this a COVID relief bill, but in actual fact, much of this bill has little to do with the coronavirus. In fact, less than 10 percent of the bill is directly related to combating COVID. If President Biden wants to know what sections of the bill to cut, I might suggest starting with the bill's minimum wage hike. The Democratic bill would more than double the Federal minimum wage at a cost of an estimated 1.4 million jobs--that according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would be problematic enough at a time when we are already dealing with substantial job losses, but it is even worse when you realize that the people most likely to lose their jobs as a result of this hike would be lower income workers. I would also suggest that the President cut his $86 billion bailout of multiemployer pension plans, which has nothing to do with emergency COVID relief. The President could also consider cutting his $350 billion slush fund for States and localities, which would be used mostly to reward States that shut down their businesses for extended periods and, therefore, have higher unemployment rates. It has become clear the majority of States are doing OK financially despite the pandemic. A number of States actually saw higher tax revenues in 2020, and a majority of States have the resources needed to weather the rest of this crisis. Three hundred fifty billion dollars far exceeds projected State need. And while we are on that topic, the economic stimulus provided by President Biden's bill, in general, far exceeds the economic need and may actually harm the economy. Even without a dollar more of stimulus spending, our economy is expected to grow at a robust 3.7 percent in 2021. The massive amount of spending that the President is proposing to inject into the economy runs the very real risk of overheating the economy and driving up inflation, and you don't have to take my word for it. Even some liberal economists have expressed their concern over the size of the Democrats' coronavirus legislation and the damage that it could do to the economy. Then, of course, there is the money the bill includes for schools. Now, while children in some places, like South Dakota, are in school, we need to get all kids back to in-person learning. In-person learning is important for kids' academic, social, and emotional health, and as Republicans have demonstrated, we want to ensure that schools have the resources they need to get back into the classroom safely. Our previous coronavirus bills contained more than $100 billion for education, and I think it is safe to say that every Republican would support additional dollars, if needed, but the fact of the matter is, schools still have billions of dollars from previous coronavirus legislation that remains unspent. And the Biden bill would appropriate an additional $129 billion for schools that schools would get--they would get--whether or not they get kids back into the classroom. On top of that, most of that money would go to schools beginning next year and stretching all the way to 2028; in other words, long after the pandemic will be over. In fact, less--if you can believe this, less than 5 percent of the education spending would occur this year. Ultimately, the Biden bill's school funding ends up looking less like a plan to get our kids back in schools and more like caving in to the teachers' unions. So if President Biden would like to know what to cut, I would suggest he start with some of the things I have highlighted. And I would ask--I would ask that he and the Democratic leadership abandon their plan to shove through a bloated, partisan bill, paid for with all borrowed money--every single dollar goes on the debt--and to start trying for the unity that the President has talked about. The President could show that he really meant what he said in his inaugural address by sitting down, in a serious way, with Republicans to develop targeted relief legislation. We are ready to come to the table. The ball is in the President's court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS795-2 | null | 2,322 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in his inaugural address, President Biden spoke about his desire to unify. He said this: Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation. Admirable words, but words have to be met with action, and, right now, we are not seeing much of an attempt to unify from the President or his party. In fact, we are seeing pretty much the opposite. The Democrats have made it very clear they are determined to pass another COVID bill on a purely partisan basis, which is particularly disappointing because, up until now, COVID relief has been a bipartisan process. That is right. To date, Congress has passed five COVID relief bills, and every single one of those bills has been overwhelmingly bipartisan. I might add, last year, when we were in the majority, Senate Democrats made it very clear that they thought the minority should have a voice in COVID relief and that any legislation should reflect the thoughts of both parties. The Democratic leader filibustered the CARES Act--our largest COVID relief bill--multiple times until he got a version that he was satisfied with, but now that the Democrats are in the majority, apparently, they have decided that it is their way or the highway. Forget the fact that the Senate is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are determined to ensure that the Republicans and the Americans they represent don't have a voice in this bill. The Democrats' move to use reconciliation to force through a purely partisan COVID bill might be understandable--and I add ``might''--if the Republicans had made it clear that we opposed doing anything else on COVID, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The Republicans have made it very clear that we are willing to work with the Democrats on additional targeted relief. Just weeks ago, 10 Republican Senators put together a plan and met with President Biden for 2 hours to discuss a bipartisan agreement, but while the President certainly listened to them graciously, it quickly became clear that their efforts didn't matter. It didn't matter how willing the Republicans were to negotiate; the Democrats had no intention of reaching an agreement. They wanted to go it alone, and they were not going to let the Republicans stop them. In a speech a few days ago, President Biden acknowledged that people have criticized his $1.9 trillion plan but asked: What would they have me cut? What would they have me leave out? Well, let me offer a few ideas. For starters, it might be a good idea to cut out the sections of the Democrats' bill that have nothing to do with combating COVID. The Democrats are calling this a COVID relief bill, but in actual fact, much of this bill has little to do with the coronavirus. In fact, less than 10 percent of the bill is directly related to combating COVID. If President Biden wants to know what sections of the bill to cut, I might suggest starting with the bill's minimum wage hike. The Democratic bill would more than double the Federal minimum wage at a cost of an estimated 1.4 million jobs--that according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would be problematic enough at a time when we are already dealing with substantial job losses, but it is even worse when you realize that the people most likely to lose their jobs as a result of this hike would be lower income workers. I would also suggest that the President cut his $86 billion bailout of multiemployer pension plans, which has nothing to do with emergency COVID relief. The President could also consider cutting his $350 billion slush fund for States and localities, which would be used mostly to reward States that shut down their businesses for extended periods and, therefore, have higher unemployment rates. It has become clear the majority of States are doing OK financially despite the pandemic. A number of States actually saw higher tax revenues in 2020, and a majority of States have the resources needed to weather the rest of this crisis. Three hundred fifty billion dollars far exceeds projected State need. And while we are on that topic, the economic stimulus provided by President Biden's bill, in general, far exceeds the economic need and may actually harm the economy. Even without a dollar more of stimulus spending, our economy is expected to grow at a robust 3.7 percent in 2021. The massive amount of spending that the President is proposing to inject into the economy runs the very real risk of overheating the economy and driving up inflation, and you don't have to take my word for it. Even some liberal economists have expressed their concern over the size of the Democrats' coronavirus legislation and the damage that it could do to the economy. Then, of course, there is the money the bill includes for schools. Now, while children in some places, like South Dakota, are in school, we need to get all kids back to in-person learning. In-person learning is important for kids' academic, social, and emotional health, and as Republicans have demonstrated, we want to ensure that schools have the resources they need to get back into the classroom safely. Our previous coronavirus bills contained more than $100 billion for education, and I think it is safe to say that every Republican would support additional dollars, if needed, but the fact of the matter is, schools still have billions of dollars from previous coronavirus legislation that remains unspent. And the Biden bill would appropriate an additional $129 billion for schools that schools would get--they would get--whether or not they get kids back into the classroom. On top of that, most of that money would go to schools beginning next year and stretching all the way to 2028; in other words, long after the pandemic will be over. In fact, less--if you can believe this, less than 5 percent of the education spending would occur this year. Ultimately, the Biden bill's school funding ends up looking less like a plan to get our kids back in schools and more like caving in to the teachers' unions. So if President Biden would like to know what to cut, I would suggest he start with some of the things I have highlighted. And I would ask--I would ask that he and the Democratic leadership abandon their plan to shove through a bloated, partisan bill, paid for with all borrowed money--every single dollar goes on the debt--and to start trying for the unity that the President has talked about. The President could show that he really meant what he said in his inaugural address by sitting down, in a serious way, with Republicans to develop targeted relief legislation. We are ready to come to the table. The ball is in the President's court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS795-2 | null | 2,323 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | Nomination of Xavier Becerra Now, Mr. President, on one related matter, today, our colleagues on the HELP Committee will question Xavier Becerra, President Biden's nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services. Amid a global pandemic, the President has made a puzzling selection for this crucial post: the famously partisan attorney general of California. Mr. Becerra has no particular experience or expertise in health. His chief passion project in California seemed to be using the force of the government to attack Americans' religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In 2017, the Department he is nominated to lead finally provided a religious exemption to a controversial ObamaCare mandate. Mr. Becerra led the lawsuit to challenge it. He used his taxpayer-funded office to sue Catholic nuns who didn't want government to force them to violate their beliefs. This is a pattern with Mr. Becerra. When a California law forcing pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion was challenged in court, Mr. Becerra defended it to the bitter end. His absurd position in favor of government-compelled speech was slapped down by the Supreme Court. Over the last 2 years, the HHS Office for Civil Rights literally has had to hold California and Mr. Becerra in violation of conscience protections that are actually written into Federal law. His zealous refusal to respect the citizens' legal rights positioned his State to potentially forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars in HHS funding. That is how committed they were to these violations. And now the fox wants to guard the henhouse? We will review Mr. Becerra's testimony today, but I am hard-pressed to see any way such a radical and underqualified nominee should fill such a critical post at this crucial time. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS795 | null | 2,324 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Biden Administration Mr. President, I wish that we could write off this nomination as an anomaly, but we can't. It is part of a pattern of behavior on the left that has destabilized our already fragile political discourse and convinced the American people that the Biden administration will prioritize their radical liberal agenda above the rights of the people they were elected to serve. I have to tell you, I hear about this every single day as I am talking with Tennesseeans. Since the earliest days of the Republic, our Union has managed to survive because of the people's willingness to return to our founding principles--those first principles upon which we stand. However much that they disagreed, they knew that they were stronger united than they were divided. So they would come together in the public square. They would have robust, respectful debate. They would agree to disagree, but they respected the fact that they lived in a free country, and they could do this without fear of persecution, without fear of being ostracized, and without fear of losing a job. Today, Americans are looking for that same commitment to unity. Oh, they heard about it during the inaugural address. Unity--we are going to work for unity. But what has happened is a cord of panic and fear has been struck in their hearts as they see Executive order after Executive order and as they see Executive orders that are preferencing other countries and not the U.S.A. And as they hear from the left words that are, We are not looking for unity; what we are looking for is you to submit to our agenda, conform to our way of doing things. What they are doing is leaving no room for discussion, even on issues of international importance. For decades, the various schools of thought represented in this Chamber have advocated for different approaches to foreign relations. Some revere international bodies and sweeping multilateral agreements, and others approach these constructs with caution, prioritizing national sovereignty over surface-level diplomacy. When former President Trump formally withdrew from the Paris climate accords in 2019, economists, business owners, and budget watchdogs all breathed a sigh of relief because they knew that adherence to the Paris climate accords would put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. This wasn't a partisan debate, mind you; this was U.S.-based companies--U.S.-based companies that were saying thank you for withdrawing because adhering to this, when other countries that are our competitors will not adhere, puts us at a disadvantage. Now, with the climate accords, by 2035, we would have seen hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, household electric bills go up as much as 20 percent, and an aggregate GDP free fall of $2\1/2\ trillion. That is the cost. That is the cost of my way or the highway. That is the cost of putting other countries and their agenda ahead of us, the cost of their noncompliance. Fast-forward to a little over a year later, and the Biden administration has thrown us back into the accords and back into that predicted economic free fall. This week, I worked with my colleague Senator Daines to introduce two pieces of legislation that will hopefully do a little bit of damage control on that issue. The first is a bill that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to rejoin the Paris Agreement. It makes sense. The reason it does is you are taking jobs away from U.S. employers. You are causing employees to become former employees or the unemployed. So it makes sense. If you want to do this, don't use taxpayer dollars. Don't make people pay for things that are going to take away their jobs. The second is a resolution that would call on President Biden to submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate for approval. It makes sense. Where are treaties to come? Here. If you want unity,send things to the Senate. If you are proud of the step you are taking, send it to the Senate. Let there be a vote of the people's representatives. Let there be discussion. Do we fear discussion? Do we fear debate? Are we so given to the cancel culture that we just say it is our way or the highway? I would note that submitting these types of agreements for consideration is a bare minimum standard set out in the Constitution, and there is no legitimate reason anyone in this Chamber should object to that. They should welcome respectful, robust debate. I think we can all agree that this oversight duty is an important one, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in letting the administration know we are not going to abandon it simply because it would make things more convenient for them. Freedom and preserving freedom are not always convenient. It takes a lot of hard work. It takes this body doing its job. It doesn't take ``my way or the highway'' Executive orders coming out of the White House. On Inauguration Day, President Biden promised unity: all for it, wanted to see it, going to work for it--nice words. But so far he has done nothing but hide behind those Executive orders and force through policies that even members of his own party object to. In Tennessee, I have talked to many who have, for most of their lives, been Democrats, and they are stunned--indeed, they are very concerned--about this authoritarian approach to running the country. Sign an Executive order and be done with it, hearing that the Speaker of the House has a few people who can vote proxy for people, seeing all this fencing around the Capitol causes Tennesseans to say: What in the world is going on up there? This is not how we are supposed to act. And I will tell you, to my friends across the aisle, one day this tactic is going to backfire on the millions of Americans who are standing up. They are contacting us. They are speaking out. They are having buyer's remorse. It will be something that will backfire because this is not the way we should be running our country. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS800-2 | null | 2,325 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Biden Administration Mr. President, I wish that we could write off this nomination as an anomaly, but we can't. It is part of a pattern of behavior on the left that has destabilized our already fragile political discourse and convinced the American people that the Biden administration will prioritize their radical liberal agenda above the rights of the people they were elected to serve. I have to tell you, I hear about this every single day as I am talking with Tennesseeans. Since the earliest days of the Republic, our Union has managed to survive because of the people's willingness to return to our founding principles--those first principles upon which we stand. However much that they disagreed, they knew that they were stronger united than they were divided. So they would come together in the public square. They would have robust, respectful debate. They would agree to disagree, but they respected the fact that they lived in a free country, and they could do this without fear of persecution, without fear of being ostracized, and without fear of losing a job. Today, Americans are looking for that same commitment to unity. Oh, they heard about it during the inaugural address. Unity--we are going to work for unity. But what has happened is a cord of panic and fear has been struck in their hearts as they see Executive order after Executive order and as they see Executive orders that are preferencing other countries and not the U.S.A. And as they hear from the left words that are, We are not looking for unity; what we are looking for is you to submit to our agenda, conform to our way of doing things. What they are doing is leaving no room for discussion, even on issues of international importance. For decades, the various schools of thought represented in this Chamber have advocated for different approaches to foreign relations. Some revere international bodies and sweeping multilateral agreements, and others approach these constructs with caution, prioritizing national sovereignty over surface-level diplomacy. When former President Trump formally withdrew from the Paris climate accords in 2019, economists, business owners, and budget watchdogs all breathed a sigh of relief because they knew that adherence to the Paris climate accords would put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. This wasn't a partisan debate, mind you; this was U.S.-based companies--U.S.-based companies that were saying thank you for withdrawing because adhering to this, when other countries that are our competitors will not adhere, puts us at a disadvantage. Now, with the climate accords, by 2035, we would have seen hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, household electric bills go up as much as 20 percent, and an aggregate GDP free fall of $2\1/2\ trillion. That is the cost. That is the cost of my way or the highway. That is the cost of putting other countries and their agenda ahead of us, the cost of their noncompliance. Fast-forward to a little over a year later, and the Biden administration has thrown us back into the accords and back into that predicted economic free fall. This week, I worked with my colleague Senator Daines to introduce two pieces of legislation that will hopefully do a little bit of damage control on that issue. The first is a bill that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to rejoin the Paris Agreement. It makes sense. The reason it does is you are taking jobs away from U.S. employers. You are causing employees to become former employees or the unemployed. So it makes sense. If you want to do this, don't use taxpayer dollars. Don't make people pay for things that are going to take away their jobs. The second is a resolution that would call on President Biden to submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate for approval. It makes sense. Where are treaties to come? Here. If you want unity,send things to the Senate. If you are proud of the step you are taking, send it to the Senate. Let there be a vote of the people's representatives. Let there be discussion. Do we fear discussion? Do we fear debate? Are we so given to the cancel culture that we just say it is our way or the highway? I would note that submitting these types of agreements for consideration is a bare minimum standard set out in the Constitution, and there is no legitimate reason anyone in this Chamber should object to that. They should welcome respectful, robust debate. I think we can all agree that this oversight duty is an important one, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in letting the administration know we are not going to abandon it simply because it would make things more convenient for them. Freedom and preserving freedom are not always convenient. It takes a lot of hard work. It takes this body doing its job. It doesn't take ``my way or the highway'' Executive orders coming out of the White House. On Inauguration Day, President Biden promised unity: all for it, wanted to see it, going to work for it--nice words. But so far he has done nothing but hide behind those Executive orders and force through policies that even members of his own party object to. In Tennessee, I have talked to many who have, for most of their lives, been Democrats, and they are stunned--indeed, they are very concerned--about this authoritarian approach to running the country. Sign an Executive order and be done with it, hearing that the Speaker of the House has a few people who can vote proxy for people, seeing all this fencing around the Capitol causes Tennesseans to say: What in the world is going on up there? This is not how we are supposed to act. And I will tell you, to my friends across the aisle, one day this tactic is going to backfire on the millions of Americans who are standing up. They are contacting us. They are speaking out. They are having buyer's remorse. It will be something that will backfire because this is not the way we should be running our country. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS800-2 | null | 2,326 |
formal | Bernie Sanders | null | antisemitic | Nominations Mr. President, on another matter, the Senate will continue to evaluate President Biden's nominees for critical positions throughout the Federal Government. Yesterday and today the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, heard from Judge Merrick Garland and others who have testified in connection with his nomination. Of course, Judge Garland has been nominated to serve as the next Attorney General. I have said before publicly that Judge Garland is highly qualified for the job. He is a widely respected judge with the right experience and credentials and the right temperament to lead the Department and manage its many critical missions. I was struck by Judge Garland's humility and his humanity. I believe he is a good man and a good person for this job. But I have to say that I am under no illusion that he is going to be able to stop the policies of this administration, some of which I am not going to agree with, some of which I will fight and try to oppose. I am encouraged by Judge Garland's pledge to keep politics out of the Justice Department, which is a significant improvement over the past. I know our Democratic colleagues like to act like all of the concerns that we had about the Justice Department were just during the Trump administration, and so I did have to remind them that the Obama administration Justice Department had a few problems of their own. Nevertheless, Judge Garland, while we don't agree on everything--and it is true of other nominees of the President that I have supported--I don't think that is the standard by which I should provide my consent as a Senator. But I do believe he has the right experience and character to serve. Unfortunately I can't offer that sort of full-throated, enthusiastic support for the President's nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget. The announcement of Neera Tanden's nomination managed to do something increasingly rare these days, and that is to put conservatives and progressives on the same side of the argument. Ms. Tanden has repeatedly made combative, insulting, and flat-out false statements against both Democrats and Republicans. She has referred to Republicans as ``evil'' and ``monsters.'' She has villainized Leader McConnell and called Senator Cotton a ``fraud'' and Senator Collins ``the worst.'' She has gone toe-to-toe with Senator Bernie Sanders, who accused her and her progressive organization of ``maligning [his] staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas.'' She has even peddled a completely false conspiracy theory that Russian hackers changed votes in 2016 to help President Trump. In short, Ms. Tanden has consistently made comments that stand in stark contrast to the Biden administration's top goals of promoting the facts and unifying our country. Last Friday, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, announced he will not support Ms. Tanden's nomination because of her inflammatory rhetoric that would, he said, have a ``toxic and detrimental impact'' on Congress's relationship with the Office of Management and Budget. Yesterday, Senator Collins, who is known for working across party lines, said she won't support this toxic nomination. I agree with our friends from West Virginia and Maine, and I think these announcements create a nearly impossible path to confirmation for this nominee. In order to be confirmed, she would need the support of at least one Republican Senator--and more, if there are additional Democrats who share the views of Senator Manchin. Based on her well-documented history of divisive and misleading comments, I think this nominee faces long odds, to say the least. My friendly advice to President Biden is to withdraw Neera Tanden's nomination and select someone who, at the very least, has not promoted wild conspiracy theories and openly bashed people on both sides of the aisle that she happens to disagree with. If President Biden is truly interested in unifying our country, I would expect him to select an OMB nominee with mainstream views and a proven ability to work respectfully with those who have different views from his or hers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS802 | null | 2,327 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nominations Mr. President, on another matter, the Senate will continue to evaluate President Biden's nominees for critical positions throughout the Federal Government. Yesterday and today the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, heard from Judge Merrick Garland and others who have testified in connection with his nomination. Of course, Judge Garland has been nominated to serve as the next Attorney General. I have said before publicly that Judge Garland is highly qualified for the job. He is a widely respected judge with the right experience and credentials and the right temperament to lead the Department and manage its many critical missions. I was struck by Judge Garland's humility and his humanity. I believe he is a good man and a good person for this job. But I have to say that I am under no illusion that he is going to be able to stop the policies of this administration, some of which I am not going to agree with, some of which I will fight and try to oppose. I am encouraged by Judge Garland's pledge to keep politics out of the Justice Department, which is a significant improvement over the past. I know our Democratic colleagues like to act like all of the concerns that we had about the Justice Department were just during the Trump administration, and so I did have to remind them that the Obama administration Justice Department had a few problems of their own. Nevertheless, Judge Garland, while we don't agree on everything--and it is true of other nominees of the President that I have supported--I don't think that is the standard by which I should provide my consent as a Senator. But I do believe he has the right experience and character to serve. Unfortunately I can't offer that sort of full-throated, enthusiastic support for the President's nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget. The announcement of Neera Tanden's nomination managed to do something increasingly rare these days, and that is to put conservatives and progressives on the same side of the argument. Ms. Tanden has repeatedly made combative, insulting, and flat-out false statements against both Democrats and Republicans. She has referred to Republicans as ``evil'' and ``monsters.'' She has villainized Leader McConnell and called Senator Cotton a ``fraud'' and Senator Collins ``the worst.'' She has gone toe-to-toe with Senator Bernie Sanders, who accused her and her progressive organization of ``maligning [his] staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas.'' She has even peddled a completely false conspiracy theory that Russian hackers changed votes in 2016 to help President Trump. In short, Ms. Tanden has consistently made comments that stand in stark contrast to the Biden administration's top goals of promoting the facts and unifying our country. Last Friday, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, announced he will not support Ms. Tanden's nomination because of her inflammatory rhetoric that would, he said, have a ``toxic and detrimental impact'' on Congress's relationship with the Office of Management and Budget. Yesterday, Senator Collins, who is known for working across party lines, said she won't support this toxic nomination. I agree with our friends from West Virginia and Maine, and I think these announcements create a nearly impossible path to confirmation for this nominee. In order to be confirmed, she would need the support of at least one Republican Senator--and more, if there are additional Democrats who share the views of Senator Manchin. Based on her well-documented history of divisive and misleading comments, I think this nominee faces long odds, to say the least. My friendly advice to President Biden is to withdraw Neera Tanden's nomination and select someone who, at the very least, has not promoted wild conspiracy theories and openly bashed people on both sides of the aisle that she happens to disagree with. If President Biden is truly interested in unifying our country, I would expect him to select an OMB nominee with mainstream views and a proven ability to work respectfully with those who have different views from his or hers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS802 | null | 2,328 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, ``Remember this day forever.'' That is what Donald Trump said on January 6, in a tweet to his supporters after they had attacked the U.S. Capitol. I certainly will never forget what happened that day. I will remember the Vice President being removed from the Chair and whisked off the floor of the Senate by the Secret Service. I will remember the law enforcement officers, holding automatic weapons, standing guard in the well of the Senate while the mob spread through the Capitol building. The entire country and the world will remember the now infamous images of a murderous mob rushing the barricades, attacking police officers, breaking into this building, and rampaging through these hallowed halls. We will remember the incredible acts of heroism by Officer Eugene Goodman and others, to protect and defend those who work in this building. And we will remember the lives lost, including Officer Brian Sicknick, and the 140 police officers who were injured in this attack. On February 3, Officer Sicknick's ashes rested in honor in the Rotunda of this Capitol. He died defending this building and this democracy. I have thought about Officer Sicknick and his family often in the past few weeks. During the week of February 8, Senators served as jurors in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Former President Trump was impeached on January 13 by the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote, 10 Republicans joining with Democrats to impeach. The Senate had a constitutional obligation to conduct a trial on this Article of Impeachment. We also had an obligation to make clear for the record and for history what happened on January 6 and the days leading up to it. What did the record show over the course of this trial? First, it showed Donald Trump's big lie: his claim that the only way he could lose an election was if it were stolen. When he lost the 2020 election in a landslide to Joe Biden, Donald Trump refused to accept the will of the American people. He tried to challenge the election in the courts, losing over 60 times. He tried to bully State officials into overturning their States' election results. And when that failed, he invited his followers to come to Washington, DC, on January 6, the day when Congress would assemble to certify the States' electoral votes. He invited them to come to DC to interrupt that process and, in his words, ``stop the steal.'' Donald Trump knew what his extremist followers were capable of. Over the summer, when armed extremists stormed and occupied State capitols, demanding an end to COVID-19 safety restrictions, he had cheered them on. On January 6, he whipped his followers into a frenzy. ``We have to fight like hell,'' he told the crowd he had invited and assembled. ``If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'' Then he told his followers--angry, inflamed, many of them armed--to go to the Capitol where the Vice President and Congress were certifying the votes. Donald Trump was not shocked what happened that day. He was excited. We now know that he ignored pleas from Members of Congress in the Capitol--members of his own party--who begged him to calm the mob and stop the attack. To this day, Donald Trump has not showed one ounce of remorse or regret. He later described his speech on January 6 as ``totally appropriate.'' For 5 days, the House Managers meticulously laid out an overwhelming case for conviction. The managers had the facts, the law, the Constitution, and a mountain of evidence on their side. The former President's defense team did not have much to work with. They only spent a couple of hours making their case and spent much of thattime showing cartoonish videos on repeat. The House Managers effectively rebutted all of the former President's defenses. The managers' case was clear, and it was compelling. That is why I voted to convict Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection against our government. I regret that more of my Republican colleagues did not join me in voting to convict and disqualify Donald Trump from holding future office. I wish the Senate had sent an unequivocal message that it is unacceptable for Presidents to incite violence in order to stop the peaceful transition of power. But that said, history will show that this was the most bipartisan impeachment vote against a President in American history. And it should not be lost that a majority of Senators--including seven Senators from the President's own party--voted to convict him. Donald Trump is no longer President of the United States, but the poison he has injected into our national bloodstream remains, and it is still toxic. As Americans reflect on the horrific, deadly events of January 6 and Donald Trump's role in inciting them, I hope we will remember that democracy and our Constitution do not defend themselves. They must be protected, preserved, and defended by ``We the People.'' On January 6, that greatest tradition of American democracy, the peaceful transition of power that had taken place in every Presidential transition since George Washington's, was broken. Our democracy, our Constitution, and this Capitol building were attacked on January 6, 2021. Brave Americans were wounded and killed defending them. And thanks to that bravery, our democracy endures. We must learn our lessons from this. We will remember January 6, 2021, forever. And we must not repeat it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS807-2 | null | 2,329 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, ``Remember this day forever.'' That is what Donald Trump said on January 6, in a tweet to his supporters after they had attacked the U.S. Capitol. I certainly will never forget what happened that day. I will remember the Vice President being removed from the Chair and whisked off the floor of the Senate by the Secret Service. I will remember the law enforcement officers, holding automatic weapons, standing guard in the well of the Senate while the mob spread through the Capitol building. The entire country and the world will remember the now infamous images of a murderous mob rushing the barricades, attacking police officers, breaking into this building, and rampaging through these hallowed halls. We will remember the incredible acts of heroism by Officer Eugene Goodman and others, to protect and defend those who work in this building. And we will remember the lives lost, including Officer Brian Sicknick, and the 140 police officers who were injured in this attack. On February 3, Officer Sicknick's ashes rested in honor in the Rotunda of this Capitol. He died defending this building and this democracy. I have thought about Officer Sicknick and his family often in the past few weeks. During the week of February 8, Senators served as jurors in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Former President Trump was impeached on January 13 by the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote, 10 Republicans joining with Democrats to impeach. The Senate had a constitutional obligation to conduct a trial on this Article of Impeachment. We also had an obligation to make clear for the record and for history what happened on January 6 and the days leading up to it. What did the record show over the course of this trial? First, it showed Donald Trump's big lie: his claim that the only way he could lose an election was if it were stolen. When he lost the 2020 election in a landslide to Joe Biden, Donald Trump refused to accept the will of the American people. He tried to challenge the election in the courts, losing over 60 times. He tried to bully State officials into overturning their States' election results. And when that failed, he invited his followers to come to Washington, DC, on January 6, the day when Congress would assemble to certify the States' electoral votes. He invited them to come to DC to interrupt that process and, in his words, ``stop the steal.'' Donald Trump knew what his extremist followers were capable of. Over the summer, when armed extremists stormed and occupied State capitols, demanding an end to COVID-19 safety restrictions, he had cheered them on. On January 6, he whipped his followers into a frenzy. ``We have to fight like hell,'' he told the crowd he had invited and assembled. ``If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'' Then he told his followers--angry, inflamed, many of them armed--to go to the Capitol where the Vice President and Congress were certifying the votes. Donald Trump was not shocked what happened that day. He was excited. We now know that he ignored pleas from Members of Congress in the Capitol--members of his own party--who begged him to calm the mob and stop the attack. To this day, Donald Trump has not showed one ounce of remorse or regret. He later described his speech on January 6 as ``totally appropriate.'' For 5 days, the House Managers meticulously laid out an overwhelming case for conviction. The managers had the facts, the law, the Constitution, and a mountain of evidence on their side. The former President's defense team did not have much to work with. They only spent a couple of hours making their case and spent much of thattime showing cartoonish videos on repeat. The House Managers effectively rebutted all of the former President's defenses. The managers' case was clear, and it was compelling. That is why I voted to convict Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection against our government. I regret that more of my Republican colleagues did not join me in voting to convict and disqualify Donald Trump from holding future office. I wish the Senate had sent an unequivocal message that it is unacceptable for Presidents to incite violence in order to stop the peaceful transition of power. But that said, history will show that this was the most bipartisan impeachment vote against a President in American history. And it should not be lost that a majority of Senators--including seven Senators from the President's own party--voted to convict him. Donald Trump is no longer President of the United States, but the poison he has injected into our national bloodstream remains, and it is still toxic. As Americans reflect on the horrific, deadly events of January 6 and Donald Trump's role in inciting them, I hope we will remember that democracy and our Constitution do not defend themselves. They must be protected, preserved, and defended by ``We the People.'' On January 6, that greatest tradition of American democracy, the peaceful transition of power that had taken place in every Presidential transition since George Washington's, was broken. Our democracy, our Constitution, and this Capitol building were attacked on January 6, 2021. Brave Americans were wounded and killed defending them. And thanks to that bravery, our democracy endures. We must learn our lessons from this. We will remember January 6, 2021, forever. And we must not repeat it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS807-2 | null | 2,330 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize the life of an exceptional woman: Karen Lewis. Most remember Karen as the fiery president of the Chicago Teachers Union who led the 2012 strike. Karen always fought for what she believed. She devoted her career to education and people. Her commitment to her beloved teachers was her North Star. Most will remember that Karen was no stranger to challenge. She attended Mount Holyoke College before transferring to Dartmouth College as a member of the first coeducational class in the institution's history. She had the courage to try her hand at medical school before finding her calling in teaching. As a new member in her teachers union, Karen did not hesitate to stand up when she thought something could be done better and ran for union offices as a member of the Caucus of Rank and File Educators, CORE. However, this was only one side of Karen Lewis. In many ways she was a true renaissance woman. In Karen's love of opera, her musical skill playing both flute and piano, her love of languages, her conversion to Judaism, and her passion for professional tennis, you could see the many facets of her life. But, above all else, I will remember Karen as a friend to both Loretta and me. In 2014, she was diagnosed with gioblastoma, a cancerous brain tumor. I remembered her diagnosis when many months later my colleague, Senator John McCain, faced the same challenge. I asked Karen who seemed to be weathering her personal storm if she would speak with John and she, of course, agreed. I do not know if the conversation took place, but I thought that these two heroes of much different wars could become unusual allies inthe common struggle each of us will face. The word ``legendary'' is overused, but when it comes to Karen Lewis, it falls short of describing an amazing life journey. I am reminded of a quote from Confucius that roughly translates to: ``If your plan is for one year, plant rice; if your plan is for ten years, plant trees; if your plan is for one hundred years, educate children.'' I am thankful for Karen's 100-year plan. Let us honor her memory by continuing her work to educate the children of America. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS808 | null | 2,331 |
formal | alarmism | null | climate change denier | Mr. PAUL, Mr. President, today, I voted to oppose the confirmation of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While I appreciate Mr. Vilsack's willingness to again serve in this capacity after holding this same role in President Obama's administration, his stance on USDA's assistance programs and climate change give me pause. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated one of his main priorities is expanding eligibility for food stamps to people not necessarily in need. Mr. Vilsack's willingness to expand eligibility for these programs will require more Federal spending and add to the national debt. Perhaps even more concerning is Mr. Vilsack's willingness to use his position at USDA to further President Biden's aggressive climate change agenda, which will undoubtedly lead to more regulations on the agriculture industry. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated, ``If confirmed, USDA will lead the federal government in . . . investing in renewable energy . . . embracing sustainable and regenerative practices that enhance soil health . . . and delivering science-based solutions to help mitigate and reduce climate change.'' Additionally, he said, ``I share the president's vision of a net-zero emission opportunity for U.S. agriculture . . .'' Cumbersome regulations based on climate alarmism will inevitably lead to higher food prices for consumers. Farmers should be able to exercise their own sound judgement and common sense without burdensome Federal regulations. For these reasons, I opposed his confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS811-2 | null | 2,332 |
formal | climate alarmism | null | climate change denier | Mr. PAUL, Mr. President, today, I voted to oppose the confirmation of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While I appreciate Mr. Vilsack's willingness to again serve in this capacity after holding this same role in President Obama's administration, his stance on USDA's assistance programs and climate change give me pause. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated one of his main priorities is expanding eligibility for food stamps to people not necessarily in need. Mr. Vilsack's willingness to expand eligibility for these programs will require more Federal spending and add to the national debt. Perhaps even more concerning is Mr. Vilsack's willingness to use his position at USDA to further President Biden's aggressive climate change agenda, which will undoubtedly lead to more regulations on the agriculture industry. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated, ``If confirmed, USDA will lead the federal government in . . . investing in renewable energy . . . embracing sustainable and regenerative practices that enhance soil health . . . and delivering science-based solutions to help mitigate and reduce climate change.'' Additionally, he said, ``I share the president's vision of a net-zero emission opportunity for U.S. agriculture . . .'' Cumbersome regulations based on climate alarmism will inevitably lead to higher food prices for consumers. Farmers should be able to exercise their own sound judgement and common sense without burdensome Federal regulations. For these reasons, I opposed his confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS811-2 | null | 2,333 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PAUL, Mr. President, today, I voted to oppose the confirmation of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While I appreciate Mr. Vilsack's willingness to again serve in this capacity after holding this same role in President Obama's administration, his stance on USDA's assistance programs and climate change give me pause. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated one of his main priorities is expanding eligibility for food stamps to people not necessarily in need. Mr. Vilsack's willingness to expand eligibility for these programs will require more Federal spending and add to the national debt. Perhaps even more concerning is Mr. Vilsack's willingness to use his position at USDA to further President Biden's aggressive climate change agenda, which will undoubtedly lead to more regulations on the agriculture industry. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated, ``If confirmed, USDA will lead the federal government in . . . investing in renewable energy . . . embracing sustainable and regenerative practices that enhance soil health . . . and delivering science-based solutions to help mitigate and reduce climate change.'' Additionally, he said, ``I share the president's vision of a net-zero emission opportunity for U.S. agriculture . . .'' Cumbersome regulations based on climate alarmism will inevitably lead to higher food prices for consumers. Farmers should be able to exercise their own sound judgement and common sense without burdensome Federal regulations. For these reasons, I opposed his confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS811-2 | null | 2,334 |
formal | food stamps | null | racist | Mr. PAUL, Mr. President, today, I voted to oppose the confirmation of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While I appreciate Mr. Vilsack's willingness to again serve in this capacity after holding this same role in President Obama's administration, his stance on USDA's assistance programs and climate change give me pause. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated one of his main priorities is expanding eligibility for food stamps to people not necessarily in need. Mr. Vilsack's willingness to expand eligibility for these programs will require more Federal spending and add to the national debt. Perhaps even more concerning is Mr. Vilsack's willingness to use his position at USDA to further President Biden's aggressive climate change agenda, which will undoubtedly lead to more regulations on the agriculture industry. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated, ``If confirmed, USDA will lead the federal government in . . . investing in renewable energy . . . embracing sustainable and regenerative practices that enhance soil health . . . and delivering science-based solutions to help mitigate and reduce climate change.'' Additionally, he said, ``I share the president's vision of a net-zero emission opportunity for U.S. agriculture . . .'' Cumbersome regulations based on climate alarmism will inevitably lead to higher food prices for consumers. Farmers should be able to exercise their own sound judgement and common sense without burdensome Federal regulations. For these reasons, I opposed his confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS811-2 | null | 2,335 |
formal | food stamp | null | racist | Mr. PAUL, Mr. President, today, I voted to oppose the confirmation of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While I appreciate Mr. Vilsack's willingness to again serve in this capacity after holding this same role in President Obama's administration, his stance on USDA's assistance programs and climate change give me pause. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated one of his main priorities is expanding eligibility for food stamps to people not necessarily in need. Mr. Vilsack's willingness to expand eligibility for these programs will require more Federal spending and add to the national debt. Perhaps even more concerning is Mr. Vilsack's willingness to use his position at USDA to further President Biden's aggressive climate change agenda, which will undoubtedly lead to more regulations on the agriculture industry. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Vilsack stated, ``If confirmed, USDA will lead the federal government in . . . investing in renewable energy . . . embracing sustainable and regenerative practices that enhance soil health . . . and delivering science-based solutions to help mitigate and reduce climate change.'' Additionally, he said, ``I share the president's vision of a net-zero emission opportunity for U.S. agriculture . . .'' Cumbersome regulations based on climate alarmism will inevitably lead to higher food prices for consumers. Farmers should be able to exercise their own sound judgement and common sense without burdensome Federal regulations. For these reasons, I opposed his confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS811-2 | null | 2,336 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute and honor the life of the late Mrs. Barbara O' Malley, a friend, and a dedicated public servant who proudly served Maryland and our Nation as a congressional staffer for Senator Barbara Mikulski for over three decades. Born in Fort Wayne, IN, Barbara's love of public service was nurtured early on by her father, Joseph Suelzer, a World War I veteran who served as the chair of the Democratic Party in Indiana's Allen County. She got an early start in politics as a congressional campaign staffer and then moved to Washington, DC, where she met her future husband, Thomas Martin O'Malley, at the Young Democrats' headquarters in our Nation's Capital. The O'Malleys made a home in Maryland, where Barbara spent 33 years as a stay-at-home mother before her inclination towards politics called her into service once more, this time with an opportunity to work for one of the only two female Senators in Congress at that time, Senator Barbara Mikulski. In Congress, Barbara found a second home. To all those fortunate enough to work in the Senate and especially to those who worked on the fifth floor of the Senate Hart Building, including myself, Barbara was simply known as ``Mrs. O.'' She worked as a receptionist for Senator Mikulski and was the friendly face who welcomed constituents, colleagues, friends, and even Senators to the office. With her warmth and kindness, she made you feel right at home. And with her deep knowledge of Maryland's democratic politics, you knew she meant business. She cherished working for Congress, and as a lover of history, she did not take for granted how special it was to walk the same Capitol halls as many of our former great American leaders. Even though Barbara was committed to serving the people of Maryland, she was also equally committed to her family--her husband, her six children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. In their family, Barbara and her husband, Thomas, a World War II veteran, instilled a sense of duty and public service, so it came as no surprise that their son, Martin O'Malley, went on to become the mayor of Baltimore and Governor of their beloved State of Maryland. Dedication and commitment to public service defined Barbara's career in Congress, and we are so lucky she chose the Senate as one of the places to make her mark in this world. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS815 | null | 2,337 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record the following obituary for Mel Antonen, a native South Dakotan and longtime Major League Baseball reporter for USA Today and elsewhere, who passed away on January 30, 2021. He is honored by Charles Raasch, also a native South Dakotan, of USA Today with an obituary upon his death. I extend my deepest sympathy to the Antonen family. The material follows: Mel Antonen, family man, friend to the world, and renowned sports journalist, died Saturday of a rare acute auto-immune disease and complications from COVID-19. He was a longtime USA TODAY Sports and MASN-TV baseball reporter who covered nearly three dozen World Series. In a half century in journalism, he reveled and excelled in telling others' stories. He was 64. Mel Richard Antonen's own story became the best of all. It began in the tiny town of Lake Norden, South Dakota, on Aug. 25, 1956, when he was the third of four children born to Ray and Valda Antonen. Lake Norden is 225 miles from the nearest major league ballpark and has never been populated with more than 550 people, but on soft summer evenings fans from counties away congregate at Memorial Park to watch a new episode of South Dakota's storied amateur baseball history. Its pull never left him even as he walked, as a sports journalist, on Boston's hallowed Fenway Park with the late Yankees Hall of Famer Joe DiMaggio, or sat in a pre-game spring training dugout with another Hall of Fame member, Minnesota Twins slugger Harmon Killebrew, weeks before Killebrew died in 2011. The Antonen family has promoted amateur baseball in Lake Norden for decades. Mel loved to tell how his father, Ray over the years brought to the tiny hometown a series of barnstorming pros, including the legendary Satchel Paige and Cy Young Award winner Jim Perry, to play at Memorial Park. On the mornings of home games throughout his childhood and beyond, Mel, his father and siblings would groom the field, with the rising corn and soybean fields ritually marking the progression of summer beyond the left-field fence. ``I love baseball because it always brings me home,'' Antonen said at his induction to South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame in 2017. ``A baseball park in my mind is a home. It doesn't matter if it's next to a cornfield, as it is in Lake Norden, or if it is next to a rumbling subway, in New York.'' At USA TODAY, and later as an analyst for MASN, the network that covers the Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles, Antonen ``was a very good storyteller who went far beyond balls and strikes and the score of the game,'' said his retired USA TODAY Sports editor Henry Freeman. Dan Connolly was among the reporters in the Washington- Baltimore area with whom Antonen was close, as they two sat next to each other in the press box and exchanged good- natured barbs. ``He had such an easy way about him with players and media and staff,'' Connolly said. ``It was one of those things, everyone liked the guy. Everyone. He had a way about him. He could relate to anybody. He was really very smart, and being a South Dakota boy, he was very ease to relate to. I remember him saying that if he didn't go into baseball writers, he wanted to be a Lutheran minister. You could tell Mel anything, he was a pastoral listening-type guy.'' Antonen's journalism career began as a kid, when he called in scores from Lake Norden's home games to two newspapers that he ended up writing for: the Watertown (S.D.) Public Opinion, which paid him as a high schooler 15 cents a copy inch; and the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, where he got his first job after graduation from Augustana University, eventually covering the sports, farm and political beats. He joined USA TODAY in 1986, where one of his earliest assignments was covering the Tonya Harding Olympics figure- skating scandal. Antonen became a MLB reporter and columnist, covering history from Cal Ripken Jr.'s consecutive games streak to the Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa record-breaking home run race and the steroid scandals that followed. The story he often said was seared most in his memory came during the earthquake-interrupted 1989 World Series. There, sitting in a press box high above San Francisco's Candlestick Park, he watched as the entire stadium undulated dangerously during the destructive Loma Prieta quake. Antonen filed a story, then headed out for days to cover the aftermath, focusing on the human costs. Hall of Famer Ripken told USA TODAY Sports' Bob Nightengale that Antonen ``was a fixture around the game for so many years, and it was clear that he had a passion for baseball. He was a thorough and thoughtful reporter and left his mark on his profession.'' Along with the World Series, Antonen covered three Olympics, and professional bowling leagues. ``I can't imagine being anything other than a reporter, an ink-stained wretch,'' he told his Hall of Fame audience. Freeman, his editor at USA TODAY's pioneering sports section, said Antonen's knowledge of baseball, reverence for its history, and his love of stories, was evident from the first day. ``It became clear to me right away the understanding he had of baseball, and a lot of that was because of his father,'' said Freeman. Freeman said one of his favorite stories involved Antonen at the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul. Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson won the 100 meters in world-record time, but failed a drug test, was stripped of his gold medal and ordered to be sent home. USA TODAY received a tip that Johnson had reservations on one of several potential flights out of South Korea, and Freeman immediately sent Antonen to the airport to find Johnson and to do anything necessary to get an interview. Carrying nothing but a walkie-talkie and his reporter's notebook, Antonen arrived at the airport and quickly discovered that Ben Johnson was booked on a flight to Toronto. Antonen bought a ticket, went aboard and found Ben Johnson--who turned out to be a doctor, decades older than the sprinter by the same name. Antonen turned failure into a memorable human interest story about the frantic hunt through Olympics high-security obstacles that ended with the wrong Ben Johnson. ``It was a non-story that he made a good story of its own,'' Freeman said. ``It also showed the lengths that Mel would go to get a good story.'' Using persistence and personality, Antonen scored a rare interview with the notoriously press-shy DiMaggio, late in the legend's life, after learning that DiMaggio was in Boston for a special event at Fenway Park. The man considered ``ungettable'' by many sports journalists talked for several hours with Antonen, and they finished with a stroll in front of the Green Monster. DiMaggio ``loved the history of baseball,'' Antonen years later told the Argus-Leader. He was a sports broadcaster for MASN's Mid-Atlantic Sports Report, and radio analyst on Sirius-XM in the last decade of his career, and also wrote for Sports Illustrated and other publications. He did a radio interview on the baseball Hall of Fame voting from his hospital bed less than a week before his death. He especially loved talking baseball with long- haul truckers on his late-night satellite radio show. Antonen's mother died when he was 12. His father, himself enshrined in the South Dakota Sports Hall of Fame, raised Mel and his sisters, Kathy and Carmen, and brother, Rusty, with the field at Memorial Park becoming a refuge. ``My life reflects the power of baseball,'' he said in that 2017 speech. ``One of my earliest memories of Lake Norden baseball was the summer of 1969. . . . In March of that year my mom died after a year-long battle with cancer. But it was baseball, and Lake Norden baseball, with hot dogs and a 10- cent glass of pop and chasing batting-practice foul balls on a beautiful summer night, that created a diversion from fearful images of three months prior--(of) my mom's tan casket, crying adults, the hearse in front of Trinity Lutheran, on an overcast subzero day, when there were piles of snow in one of South Dakota's worst winters.'' Antonen kept reporting and writing throughout his illness with COVID-19 and an auto-immune disease so rare that his doctors told him he may have been the only person on Earth with that combination. Months after being diagnosed with both diseases, Mel scored an interview with Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert and big baseball fan, who talked about the need for caution, but also hope, in a pandemic. ``You've got to go on with your life, but that doesn't mean you have to deprive yourself of all the pleasures'' Fauci told him. Antonen's final column for MASN, written after the Dodgers won the World Series in October, paid homage to the comforting and reassuring next-year ritual of baseball. It ended this way: ``World Series 2021 prediction: The Padres in six over the White Sox.'' Mel Richard Antonen is survived by his son, Emmett, 14, and his wife, Lisa Nipp, a photojournalist, whom he married in 2001, along with three siblings and their families. Lisa embraced the many characters in Mel's baseball orbit, once holding the phone for Mel with the crusty, late Hall-of-Fame pitcher Bob Feller by discussing the beauty of hollyhocks. ``From Joe DiMaggio to Dusty Baker and Bryce Harper, I have gotten to meet and interview and become friends with people that baseball fans around the world would love to know,'' he said in that Hall of Fame speech in South Dakota. ``But those experiences only happened because I grew up around people that we should all be lucky to know. The lessons learned here, and on the prairie, have gone with me and worked beautifully. And tonight, baseball brings me home once again.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS817 | null | 2,338 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to Ms. Jane Anne Boorman, a native South Dakotan and dedicated public servant, who passed away in December. Jane was deeply respected among her peers and beyond, having earned a superb reputation with her hard work and integrity. Jane was active and well-known in South Dakota Republican Party politics, and she was a thought-leader and friend, who no doubt helped inspire countless leaders and support important efforts throughout our great State. I extend my deep condolences and prayers to the Boorman family. The following is Jane's obituary honoring the life of this great South Dakotan. The material follows: Jane Anne Boorman (1932 to 2020), a retired federal employee, Congressional aide, and newspaper editor died on December 11, 2020, at Arbor Place Retirement Home in Rockville, Maryland. She was 88. Jane was born in Lemmon, South Dakota to Anne Sutton Boorman and Lloyd Bruce (LB) Boorman. She graduated from Lemmon High School and Marquette University. Jane's life straddled South Dakota and Washington, DC. Born and raised on the high plains in Lemmon, South Dakota, Jane embodied the flinty independence of its early settlers. She was hard to know and always pushed for perfection, but once you were in her life you had a steadfast, loyal, and loving friend. In Lemmon, Jane was editor and held other roles at the Lemmon Leader--the family-owned newspaper--where she worked until 1973. She also was named co-editor for ``Dakota Panorama''--an history of South Dakota published by the South Dakota Territory Centennial observance in 1961. Jane's passion for Republican party politics started early in her life. She was selected Outstanding Young Republican Woman in South Dakota and represented South Dakota as the state's Young Republican National Committee woman in 1961. In 1963 she was elected Vice Chairman of the National Young Republican Federation. In 1973, she moved from Lemmon to Washington, D.C. to be a Press Secretary for then Congressman James Abdnor when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She followed Abdnor to the U.S. Senate in 1981 as the Senator's personal secretary. As the Washington Post noted in 1986, Jane was ``the embodiment of that Hill legend--the furiously devoted personal secretary, a combination mother, wife and watchdog, protecting as she sees best the beloved senator behind the door.'' Boorman joined the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in 1987 as Director of Communications after President Ronald Reagan appointed Abdnor as Administrator of the SBA. During her 28 years at the Agency, Jane held various positions including managing the agency's relationship with SCORE and coordinating activities when international delegations visited the SBA. She retired from the SBA in 2015. In Washington, she made her home at Riverside Condominium for 48 years and was active on the condo board, Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, and was a long-time organist at Fort Leslie J. McNair, and at St. Dominic Catholic Church. Although she lived in Washington DC, Jane maintained a strong foothold in South Dakota through memberships in the S.D. Newspaper Association, the S.D. Historical Society, and in championing growth for her hometown of Lemmon. She was also a lifetime member of the Society of Professional Journalists. She is survived by her brother Bruce Boorman, Santee, California, and numerous nieces and nephews. Jane was preceded in her death by her parents and a sister, Katherine Becker, Hartford, Wisconsin. In remembrance of Jane Boorman's life, the family asks that any charitable donations be made to WETA, Jane's favorite classical music station or to Jewish Social Service Agency (JSSA), her amazing hospice care team. Memorial services will be held in Washington, D.C. and Lemmon, S.D after the pandemic threat has diminished. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-02-23-pt1-PgS818 | null | 2,339 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 546) to regulate monitoring of electronic communications between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar) | House | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgH610 | null | 2,340 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1192) to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA''), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgH611 | null | 2,341 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, beginning March 1, 2020, concerning the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is to continue in effect beyond March 1, 2021. There remains a need to continue this national emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause significant risk to the public health and safety of the Nation. More than 500,000 people in this Nation have perished from the disease, and it is essential to continue to combat and respond to COVID-19 with the full capacity and capability of the Federal Government. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Proclamation 9994 concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Joseph R. Biden. The White House, February 24, 2021. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgH612-3 | null | 2,342 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | American Rescue Plan Mr. President, even now, even as we continue to confirm President Biden's nominees here on the floor, the Senate Democratic majority is busy working on the American Rescue Plan. The country has just suffered from a once-in-a-century event that shuttered thousands of businesses, sapped more than 10 million jobs, and, according to CBO, left a $17 trillion hole in our economy. As the distribution of the vaccine finally begins to accelerate under the Biden administration, there is certainly hope on the horizon. But we are a far way off from a full recovery, and it is our job--our job--to help millions of Americans--struggling Americans--through the next several months of difficulty and hasten the day when our country can finally return to normal. The American Rescue Plan is designed to do just that--keep American families and businesses and schools and workers afloat until they can get back on their feet. And there is a broad consensus that our country needs more support to get through this crisis. Mayors and Governors from both parties support the plan. The Republican Governor of West Virginia told Congress: ``[W]e need to go big.'' Economists from across the political spectrum say that our economy needs further support. The Chair of the Federal Reserve, appointed by President Trump, just told us that ``the economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain.'' Chairman Powell, hardly a raving liberal, concluded: ``There is a long way to go.'' And it has broad support in America. Seven in 10 Americans approve of the American Rescue Plan. In some polls I have seen, a majority of Republicans approve of this plan--Republican voters, not Republicans here in the Senate. Now, it is easy to see why there is such broad support. The COVID pandemic is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the worst public health crisis our Nation has faced in 100 years. But our Republican colleagues say all these groups demanding the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan--business leaders, government officials from both parties, economists from across the spectrum, and 7 in 10 Americans--Republicans say all of them are wrong. According to a report in CNN, Republican leaders are maneuvering to get every single Republican Member to oppose the emerging legislation--every single one. Make no mistake, Republicans oppose the American Rescue Plan to the detriment of the country, and they do so at their own political peril. If our Republican colleagues want to oppose direct checks to struggling families; food assistance to hungry Americans; keeping teachers, firefighters, and essential public employees on the job; providing another round of support for small business; helping schools reopen as quickly and safely as possible; speeding vaccinations around the country--well, if congressional Republicans want to oppose all that, my response is, good luck. The country needs this final push. It is overwhelmingly popular. A new analysis this morning showed another vaccine produced by a U.S. company is safe and effective, which only underscores the need for Federal dollars to accelerate its distribution. It will help millions of American families survive the ongoing crisis, recuperate from the economic hardship of the past year, and set our country on a firm path to recovery. That is why Senate Democrats have made it the first legislative item on our agenda. By stark contrast, the first action item taken by the Republican Senate majority when they got the majority in 2017 was an attempt to repeal our Nation's healthcare law and rip health coverage away from millions of Americans. Republicans followed it up with a giant tax cut disproportionately aimed at rich corporations and the uber-rich. The Democratic Senate majority is going to start on a much different note. This week, the House--and soon thereafter the Senate--will start working on President Biden's American Rescue Plan to deliver desperately and urgently needed assistance to the American people. One final note on this topic--the minimum wage. As it has been reported widely, the Senate Parliamentarian is hearing arguments today on the $15 minimum wage policy included in the House version of the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour has a significant budgetary impact, which should make it permissible under the Senate's reconciliation rules. I want to thank all of the hard-working Senate staffers on my staff, Senator Sanders' staff, and many others in participating in these arguments today. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS835-2 | null | 2,343 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | American Rescue Plan Mr. President, even now, even as we continue to confirm President Biden's nominees here on the floor, the Senate Democratic majority is busy working on the American Rescue Plan. The country has just suffered from a once-in-a-century event that shuttered thousands of businesses, sapped more than 10 million jobs, and, according to CBO, left a $17 trillion hole in our economy. As the distribution of the vaccine finally begins to accelerate under the Biden administration, there is certainly hope on the horizon. But we are a far way off from a full recovery, and it is our job--our job--to help millions of Americans--struggling Americans--through the next several months of difficulty and hasten the day when our country can finally return to normal. The American Rescue Plan is designed to do just that--keep American families and businesses and schools and workers afloat until they can get back on their feet. And there is a broad consensus that our country needs more support to get through this crisis. Mayors and Governors from both parties support the plan. The Republican Governor of West Virginia told Congress: ``[W]e need to go big.'' Economists from across the political spectrum say that our economy needs further support. The Chair of the Federal Reserve, appointed by President Trump, just told us that ``the economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain.'' Chairman Powell, hardly a raving liberal, concluded: ``There is a long way to go.'' And it has broad support in America. Seven in 10 Americans approve of the American Rescue Plan. In some polls I have seen, a majority of Republicans approve of this plan--Republican voters, not Republicans here in the Senate. Now, it is easy to see why there is such broad support. The COVID pandemic is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the worst public health crisis our Nation has faced in 100 years. But our Republican colleagues say all these groups demanding the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan--business leaders, government officials from both parties, economists from across the spectrum, and 7 in 10 Americans--Republicans say all of them are wrong. According to a report in CNN, Republican leaders are maneuvering to get every single Republican Member to oppose the emerging legislation--every single one. Make no mistake, Republicans oppose the American Rescue Plan to the detriment of the country, and they do so at their own political peril. If our Republican colleagues want to oppose direct checks to struggling families; food assistance to hungry Americans; keeping teachers, firefighters, and essential public employees on the job; providing another round of support for small business; helping schools reopen as quickly and safely as possible; speeding vaccinations around the country--well, if congressional Republicans want to oppose all that, my response is, good luck. The country needs this final push. It is overwhelmingly popular. A new analysis this morning showed another vaccine produced by a U.S. company is safe and effective, which only underscores the need for Federal dollars to accelerate its distribution. It will help millions of American families survive the ongoing crisis, recuperate from the economic hardship of the past year, and set our country on a firm path to recovery. That is why Senate Democrats have made it the first legislative item on our agenda. By stark contrast, the first action item taken by the Republican Senate majority when they got the majority in 2017 was an attempt to repeal our Nation's healthcare law and rip health coverage away from millions of Americans. Republicans followed it up with a giant tax cut disproportionately aimed at rich corporations and the uber-rich. The Democratic Senate majority is going to start on a much different note. This week, the House--and soon thereafter the Senate--will start working on President Biden's American Rescue Plan to deliver desperately and urgently needed assistance to the American people. One final note on this topic--the minimum wage. As it has been reported widely, the Senate Parliamentarian is hearing arguments today on the $15 minimum wage policy included in the House version of the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour has a significant budgetary impact, which should make it permissible under the Senate's reconciliation rules. I want to thank all of the hard-working Senate staffers on my staff, Senator Sanders' staff, and many others in participating in these arguments today. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS835-2 | null | 2,344 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | American Rescue Plan Mr. President, even now, even as we continue to confirm President Biden's nominees here on the floor, the Senate Democratic majority is busy working on the American Rescue Plan. The country has just suffered from a once-in-a-century event that shuttered thousands of businesses, sapped more than 10 million jobs, and, according to CBO, left a $17 trillion hole in our economy. As the distribution of the vaccine finally begins to accelerate under the Biden administration, there is certainly hope on the horizon. But we are a far way off from a full recovery, and it is our job--our job--to help millions of Americans--struggling Americans--through the next several months of difficulty and hasten the day when our country can finally return to normal. The American Rescue Plan is designed to do just that--keep American families and businesses and schools and workers afloat until they can get back on their feet. And there is a broad consensus that our country needs more support to get through this crisis. Mayors and Governors from both parties support the plan. The Republican Governor of West Virginia told Congress: ``[W]e need to go big.'' Economists from across the political spectrum say that our economy needs further support. The Chair of the Federal Reserve, appointed by President Trump, just told us that ``the economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain.'' Chairman Powell, hardly a raving liberal, concluded: ``There is a long way to go.'' And it has broad support in America. Seven in 10 Americans approve of the American Rescue Plan. In some polls I have seen, a majority of Republicans approve of this plan--Republican voters, not Republicans here in the Senate. Now, it is easy to see why there is such broad support. The COVID pandemic is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the worst public health crisis our Nation has faced in 100 years. But our Republican colleagues say all these groups demanding the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan--business leaders, government officials from both parties, economists from across the spectrum, and 7 in 10 Americans--Republicans say all of them are wrong. According to a report in CNN, Republican leaders are maneuvering to get every single Republican Member to oppose the emerging legislation--every single one. Make no mistake, Republicans oppose the American Rescue Plan to the detriment of the country, and they do so at their own political peril. If our Republican colleagues want to oppose direct checks to struggling families; food assistance to hungry Americans; keeping teachers, firefighters, and essential public employees on the job; providing another round of support for small business; helping schools reopen as quickly and safely as possible; speeding vaccinations around the country--well, if congressional Republicans want to oppose all that, my response is, good luck. The country needs this final push. It is overwhelmingly popular. A new analysis this morning showed another vaccine produced by a U.S. company is safe and effective, which only underscores the need for Federal dollars to accelerate its distribution. It will help millions of American families survive the ongoing crisis, recuperate from the economic hardship of the past year, and set our country on a firm path to recovery. That is why Senate Democrats have made it the first legislative item on our agenda. By stark contrast, the first action item taken by the Republican Senate majority when they got the majority in 2017 was an attempt to repeal our Nation's healthcare law and rip health coverage away from millions of Americans. Republicans followed it up with a giant tax cut disproportionately aimed at rich corporations and the uber-rich. The Democratic Senate majority is going to start on a much different note. This week, the House--and soon thereafter the Senate--will start working on President Biden's American Rescue Plan to deliver desperately and urgently needed assistance to the American people. One final note on this topic--the minimum wage. As it has been reported widely, the Senate Parliamentarian is hearing arguments today on the $15 minimum wage policy included in the House version of the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour has a significant budgetary impact, which should make it permissible under the Senate's reconciliation rules. I want to thank all of the hard-working Senate staffers on my staff, Senator Sanders' staff, and many others in participating in these arguments today. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS835-2 | null | 2,345 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | American Rescue Plan Mr. President, even now, even as we continue to confirm President Biden's nominees here on the floor, the Senate Democratic majority is busy working on the American Rescue Plan. The country has just suffered from a once-in-a-century event that shuttered thousands of businesses, sapped more than 10 million jobs, and, according to CBO, left a $17 trillion hole in our economy. As the distribution of the vaccine finally begins to accelerate under the Biden administration, there is certainly hope on the horizon. But we are a far way off from a full recovery, and it is our job--our job--to help millions of Americans--struggling Americans--through the next several months of difficulty and hasten the day when our country can finally return to normal. The American Rescue Plan is designed to do just that--keep American families and businesses and schools and workers afloat until they can get back on their feet. And there is a broad consensus that our country needs more support to get through this crisis. Mayors and Governors from both parties support the plan. The Republican Governor of West Virginia told Congress: ``[W]e need to go big.'' Economists from across the political spectrum say that our economy needs further support. The Chair of the Federal Reserve, appointed by President Trump, just told us that ``the economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain.'' Chairman Powell, hardly a raving liberal, concluded: ``There is a long way to go.'' And it has broad support in America. Seven in 10 Americans approve of the American Rescue Plan. In some polls I have seen, a majority of Republicans approve of this plan--Republican voters, not Republicans here in the Senate. Now, it is easy to see why there is such broad support. The COVID pandemic is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the worst public health crisis our Nation has faced in 100 years. But our Republican colleagues say all these groups demanding the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan--business leaders, government officials from both parties, economists from across the spectrum, and 7 in 10 Americans--Republicans say all of them are wrong. According to a report in CNN, Republican leaders are maneuvering to get every single Republican Member to oppose the emerging legislation--every single one. Make no mistake, Republicans oppose the American Rescue Plan to the detriment of the country, and they do so at their own political peril. If our Republican colleagues want to oppose direct checks to struggling families; food assistance to hungry Americans; keeping teachers, firefighters, and essential public employees on the job; providing another round of support for small business; helping schools reopen as quickly and safely as possible; speeding vaccinations around the country--well, if congressional Republicans want to oppose all that, my response is, good luck. The country needs this final push. It is overwhelmingly popular. A new analysis this morning showed another vaccine produced by a U.S. company is safe and effective, which only underscores the need for Federal dollars to accelerate its distribution. It will help millions of American families survive the ongoing crisis, recuperate from the economic hardship of the past year, and set our country on a firm path to recovery. That is why Senate Democrats have made it the first legislative item on our agenda. By stark contrast, the first action item taken by the Republican Senate majority when they got the majority in 2017 was an attempt to repeal our Nation's healthcare law and rip health coverage away from millions of Americans. Republicans followed it up with a giant tax cut disproportionately aimed at rich corporations and the uber-rich. The Democratic Senate majority is going to start on a much different note. This week, the House--and soon thereafter the Senate--will start working on President Biden's American Rescue Plan to deliver desperately and urgently needed assistance to the American people. One final note on this topic--the minimum wage. As it has been reported widely, the Senate Parliamentarian is hearing arguments today on the $15 minimum wage policy included in the House version of the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour has a significant budgetary impact, which should make it permissible under the Senate's reconciliation rules. I want to thank all of the hard-working Senate staffers on my staff, Senator Sanders' staff, and many others in participating in these arguments today. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS835-2 | null | 2,346 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Protests Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, I have been outspoken and clear about the crimes that were committed here on January 6. In my discussions with Judge Garland, the President's nominee to be Attorney General, I specifically raised the need to continue investigating and prosecuting anyone who broke the law that day. I am glad he has repeatedly emphasized this would remain a priority. Everyone agrees that day's events must occasion a serious and thorough review of the specific institutions and security procedures within Congress that proved so insufficient. That process is already underway as we saw with the joint hearing conducted yesterday by two Senate committees. The Speaker of the House proposes even more investigation through a new commission. She cites the precedent of the 9/11 Commission, but her draft bill fails to track with that precedent in key ways. The 9/11 Commission was intentionally built to be bipartisan. The 50-50 bipartisan split of the commissioners was a key feature. It both helped the effectiveness of the investigation itself and helped give the whole country confidence in its work and its recommendations. This time, however, Speaker Pelosi started by proposing a commission that would be partisan by design--seven appointments for Democrats, just four for Republicans. The 9/11 Commission also built consensus by requiring bipartisan support for subpoenas. The Speaker's bill would vest subpoena power in one appointee chosen by the Democrats. Both the Democratic and Republican leaders of the 9/11 Commission are speaking out against this bizarrely partisan concept. Let me say that again. The leaders of the 9/11 Commission--one Republican, one Democrat--are speaking out against the way this proposal is crafted by the Speaker. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, says: That does not sound to me like a good start; it sounds like a partisan beginning. That was the Democratic Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Kean, the Republican Chairman, pointed out what should be obvious: Unless you have equal representation . . . the report won't have as much confidence from the American people. Any undertaking along these lines needs to be fair and needs to be evenhanded. That really shouldn't be controversial, and it goes beyond just a makeup of the panel. For example, the Speaker's proposal imagines something more than an investigation into the specific security failures that occurred here at the Capitol. It sets the stage for a somewhat broader inquiry into ``domestic violent extremism'' beyond just that day, but the partisan panel would get to decide which other incidents are and are not ``relevant.'' Rioting and political violence are abhorrent and unacceptable no matter what cause the mob is advancing. These are not forms of political speech. For almost a year now, we have seen political violence and riots become an increasingly normalized phenomenon across our national life. None of us should accept that. January 6 was uniquely grave because the intent was to interrupt the constitutional duty of Congress, but if this new commission is to go beyond a targeted, after-action analysis of the security failures here at the Capitol complex and if Congress is going to attempt some broader analysis of toxic political violence across the country, then, in that case, we cannot have an artificial cherry-picking of which terrible behavior does and which terrible behavior does not deserve scrutiny. We could do something narrow that looks at the Capitol or we could potentially do something broader to analyze the full scope of the political violence here in our country. We cannot land at some artificial, politicized halfway point. Don't take it from me. Take it from the Democratic and Republican leaders of the 9/11 Commission. An inquiry with a hard-wired partisan slant would never be legitimate in the eyes of the American people. An undertaking that is uneven or unjust would not help our country | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS837 | null | 2,347 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Coronavirus Madam President, on another matter, as you know, this week our Democratic colleagues in the House are continuing to take action on President Biden's relief bill, using the budget reconciliation process. It is really not so much an issue in the House, where you can do anything you want, basically, with a majority vote. But if all goes their way, our Democratic colleagues will write a $1.9 trillion check, funded by taxpayers--future taxpayers because it will be borrowed money--without the input of a single Republican in Congress, either in the House or in the Senate. We know that there are 10 Republicans who went over to the White House, had a very pleasant meeting with President Biden, but were essentially told: My way or the highway. Any effort to try to come up with a bipartisan compromise was rejected Regardless of your political affiliation or views on this particular bill, that fact alone should trouble every single American. After all, there was no need for partisan maneuvering to pass a coronavirus relief bill last year. As a matter of fact, we passed five of them. All of them were signed into law with overwhelming bipartisan support. No bill received fewer than 90 votes here in the Senate. One even passed unanimously. Of course, the reason for the widespread support wasn't because Members thought these relief packages were perfect. There were things I would have changed if I had had a chance, and I am sure others would have made other changes. But each bill was a clear response to the crisis at hand and free from any unrelated partisan priorities. In other words, it was focused on COVID-19 relief. Suffice it to say that the same cannot be said about this latest piece of legislation, this $1.9 trillion bill being rammed through Congress by our Democratic colleagues. Overall, I have three concerns with this legislation. First, it would dramatically overspend in areas that aren't even in need of additional funding. In the early days of the pandemic, we had no real expectation about how long the crisis would last or how big a blow it would deal to our economy. After the CARES Act was signed into law in March, late March, it made sense to hit the pause button so we could see how what we did was working--what was working well and what was not working so well. Where was more assistance needed? Where was it sufficient? These needs became obvious pretty quickly. One example was the Paycheck Protection Program. Within 2 weeks of passage of $350 billion worth of relief, it ran dry--in 2 weeks. So we quickly came together on a bipartisan basis to replenish the fund with additional money, and we did so again at the end of the year. This sort of bipartisan, step-by-step approach is the most effective way to get funding where it is needed without wasting money on already well-funded programs. But, unfortunately, our friends across the aisle didn't apply that same logic to this $1.9 trillion piece of legislation, which sends hundreds of billions of dollars to areas that are nowhere near running out of money. One example is public education. So far, Congress has provided more than $110 billion to support K-12 education, including $68 billion in the relief bill passed just in December. Schools in Texas have used this money to update their ventilation systems, purchase masks and personal protective equipment, and make other investments in classroom safety. But the vast majority of the funding that was provided in December is still waiting to be used. In other words, there is no current need for any more money from Congress. As a matter of fact, as of February 9, States have spent just under $5 billion of the $68 billion we have already provided for K-12 education. They have spent just $5 billion out of the $68 billion. As a reminder, in December, the CDC--the Centers for Disease Control--estimated schools would need only about $22 billion to reopen safely, meaning there is already more than enough money to support safe school reopenings. But that data-driven estimate from the experts doesn't seem to matter to our Democratic colleagues or the administration, who are preparingto drop another $130 billion for public education. So $5 billion has been spent out of the $68 billion we have already appropriated, and our Democratic colleagues now want to spend another $130 billion. Since most of the existing funds remain to be spent, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bulk of spending of this new proposed funding would occur after this year, after 2021; that is, the majority of the funding in this new so-called COVID relief bill wouldn't even be touched until, God willing, the pandemic is already in the rearview mirror. I have advocated for funding to help our schools prepare for a safe return to the classroom, and the experts tell us that there is more than sufficient funding already out there to make that happen. So I am left to conclude, as I think most--really, any reasonable person would, that it is irresponsible to have taxpayers foot the bill for another $130 billion when there is no need for the funding. And this isn't like we are spending money that we have. We are actually borrowing money from future generations, exacerbating an already huge Federal debt. That brings me to the second concern I have with this bill: It completely ignores the trajectory of our economic recovery. At the start of the pandemic, we all know the economic hammer came down hard and fast. As States imposed lockdown measures, businesses closed their doors, people lost their jobs, and consumer spending plummeted. But as the pandemic has gone on, even the more moderate predictions about an economic depression have proven wrong. By any measure, our economy has recovered faster than any of us expected. That should be a positive thing. We should be happy about that. The unemployment rate has steadily declined, going from 14.8 percent in April to 6.3 percent last month. State tax revenues have largely rebounded. As a matter of fact, California has fared so well that it is adding money to their rainy day fund. In other words, they don't need any more money. Their revenues have exceeded their revenues from years before the pandemic even hit. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. economy will return to its prepandemic size by the middle of this year, even if Congress doesn't approve another penny of money. Let me say that again. The Congressional Budget Office projects the U.S. economy will return to its prepandemic size in the middle of this year--just a few months away--even if Congress does not approve any more Federal money to aid the recovery. Well, it is tough to reconcile that fact with the claim from our friends across the aisle that we need to spend another $1.9 trillion, money that we don't have. Despite all the data that shows our economy is recovering, rebounding in a robust way, this bill sends another $350 billion to State and local governments that are not facing the dire budget shortfalls that we worried about last March. And it is not without negative consequences. Larry Summers, who served as the Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration and who was an economic adviser to President Obama, offered a good observation on the situation in a recent opinion piece. He wrote: [W]hereas the Obama stimulus was about half as large as the output shortfall, the proposed Biden stimulus is three times as large as the projected shortfall. Relative to the size of the gap being addressed, it is six times as large. For this administration to make public comments about following the science--certainly, following the facts, listening to the experts--it is hard to reconcile that with this bill that is so divorced from reality. I don't think you can do it, which brings me to my third big concern with this bill: This is not a COVID-19 relief bill in its entirety. It includes a range of completely unrelated, liberal priorities that should not be included in this emergency spending, let alone one that is rushed through in a partisan manner through the budget process. One case in point is the proposed increase in the minimum wage to $15. Regardless of the cost of living, businesses in small towns and major cities alike would be required to pay their employees $15 an hour by 2025. Now, for big companies in big cities, that may be doable. That may be the going rate to get the kind of quality workforce you want. As we know, companies like Amazon have already implemented their own $15 an hour minimum wage back in 2018, and they can afford it. But for small businesses that are the backbone of our economy and are key to our economic recovery following this pandemic, this could lead to massive layoffs or permanent closures. The Congressional Budget Office that I referred to earlier estimates that this provision alone could put 1.4 million Americans out of work. Do we really want to pass a provision that would put 1.4 million Americans out of work? That is 50 percent more than it could potentially lift out of poverty. As a reminder, our colleagues are trying to rush this massive change through Congress as part of a pandemic relief bill because they know that it is the only shot at passing a bill that would have this sort of dramatic negative effect on jobs--all under the guise of economic relief and stimulus. There is simply no way to justify a one-size-fits-all mandate that treats Silicon Valley the same as it does mom-and-pop businesses in rural America. And the range of unrelated provisions doesn't stop there. This legislation includes $30 billion for public transit agencies, a blank check to bail out mismanaged union pension funds without any reforms, and funding for a bridge to connect the majority leader's home State of New York to Canada. So we are going to build the majority leader a bridge to Canada as part of an emergency COVID-19 relief bill. It is outrageous. Everyone remembers the infamous earmark now known as the bridge to nowhere. At least in this case we know where the bridge will end up. But a pandemic relief bill should not serve as a Trojan horse in order to pursue such parochial and local desires or any other part of an unrelated liberal wish list. So the Biden bill of $1.9 trillion actually creates more problems than it solves or it tries to solve nonexistent problems. It drives up our national debt by spending money that experts say is not needed. It ignores the data--the facts about our economic recovery--and it creates even more problems, all in the name of securing a win for the administration and our Democratic colleagues. It is as though this bill were drafted in a vacuum with no attention paid to what has already been done, how things are going, or what we anticipate the need will be in the future. If the evidence and the experts tell us that more funding is needed to bolster our response to the virus, I will be one of the first people to advocate for additional targeted relief. But this race to spend money for the sake of spending money and ignore what the experts are saying is absolutely disgraceful. The two parties have done much better than this. As I said, last year, we passed five COVID relief bills on a bipartisan basis because we all were trying to come together and meet a common enemy--the COVID-19 virus and the consequences of the pandemic. But it seems like this $1.9 trillion wish list is divorced, really, from the COVID-19 relief that we did in the past and is designed purely for partisan political purposes, and I think it is an unfortunate development in an area where we have so successfully worked together in a bipartisan way. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS848-2 | null | 2,348 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, now is the time to take substantive action to transition to renewable resources, combat climate change, and build a brighter future for Americans. To help manage that transition, President Biden has nominated Jennifer Granholm to be the Secretary of Energy. As the first female Governor and first female attorney general in Michigan history, Granholm oversaw the State's response to the great recession and worked closely with the Obama administration to save the Nation's auto industry and 1 million jobs. Granholm embraced innovative ideas to electrify the auto industry, stimulate State-wide job growth, and build the State's clean energy sector. She founded the American Jobs Project to promote technological advancements and clean energy policies to spark job creation and continues to push for clean energy policy nationwide. Additionally, Granholm backed tax credits and incentives for wind and solar and signed legislation requiring Michigan to get 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources. She is eminently qualified to spearhead research and development and set policies to reach President Biden's stated goal of getting to a 100-percent carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. Granholm received bipartisan support from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we should follow their lead. She knows that clean energy is the key to creating millions of good jobs and mitigating climate change and is dedicated to advancing our Nation's nuclear security. For these reasons, I support Jennifer Granholm's nomination for Secretary of Energy. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS851-2 | null | 2,349 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, once again, I have listened to the arguments of the respective counsel, studied briefs, and weighed evidence in an impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. This is not a responsibility I sought or expected. I certainly did not anticipate having to serve a second time as a Senator-juror in an impeachment trial. An initial question shaping the context of this trial was whether or not the Senate has constitutional jurisdiction to try a President who is no longer in office. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments. In this case, where the House impeached the President while he was in office, it is particularly clear that the impeachment is constitutional and therefore that this trial is constitutional. The weight of legal opinion and historical precedent affirms this conclusion. Further, the Senate decided this question in the affirmative. I believe its decision was correct: The Senate must not surrender its power to hold accountable those who abuse their office or threaten our Republic, even in their final days in office. In following the oath in an impeachment trial and in our deliberations on the final question, I believe it is up to every Senator to determine what to consider and what the Constitution and their conscience require of them. The conclusion I reached on the final verdict will not surprise anyone who read my reasoning in the first impeachment trial: I consider an attempt to corrupt an election to keep oneself in power one of the most reprehensible acts that can be taken by a sitting President. The second impeachment resulted from the President's continued effort to do just that. His attempt to pressure Georgia's secretary of state to falsify the electoral results was itself a heinous act that merited impeachment. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington on the very day of the electoral vote count, knowing that among the people he gathered were many who had committed violence in the past and who had violent intent. Despite the obvious and well-known threat of violence, he incited and directed thousands to descend upon the seat of Congress as it was undertaking the constitutionally prescribed process to certify his successor. And then he not only failed to defend the Vice President and the others at the Capitol who he saw were in mortal danger, he also incited further violence against the Vice President. The President's conduct represented an unprecedented violation of his oath of office and of the public trust. There is a thin line that separates our democratic republic from an autocracy: It is a free and fair election and the peaceful transfer of power that follows it. President Trump attempted to breach that line, again. What he attempted is what was most feared by the Founders. It is the reason they invested Congress with the power to impeach. Accordingly, I voted to convict President Trump. We must also consider how we came to a point where a President felt he could do as he did without suffering meaningful consequence. It has become almost cliche to say that America is divided as never before in modern history. So, too, is the observation that this division is the product of a decline in trust in our governing institutions, of a decline in the social bonds forged in churches and charities and communities, of expanding income inequality, and of trustednews sources replaced by cable and internet algorithms calculated to inflame our prejudices. Less unanimous are the predictions of where this division will lead. Even so, no one suggests that it will lead to a better future. Some envision an economy buffeted by policies drafted by the extreme wings of the political parties. Others claim that authoritarianism will replace democracy. Some anticipate social unrest and violence. A few even predict civil war. Still others fear that a weakened America will become vulnerable to an opportunistic foreign foe. We instinctively know that the growing division represents a growing danger. Academics and pundits may promote cures, but in our hearts, we know that their bromides won't heal the rift. People aren't going to return to mainstream media, churches aren't going to experience a resurgence, and income inequality will remain a persistent feature of the global digital economy. Throughout history, only one thing has been able to unite a divided nation: great leaders--leaders like Churchill who inspired a fearful nation; leaders like Lincoln who mustered the national will to save the Union; and leaders like Reagan who raised our spirits from suffocating malaise. Leaders like these also have been essential in our churches and universities and businesses and charities, and just as importantly, in our homes. With our Nation so divided, so vulnerable to economic distress or to civil violence or even to foreign adversaries, the need for leadership that unites and uplifts, that calls on our better angels, is as great as we have ever known. The corollary is that the failure of leaders to unite, to speak truth, to place duty above self, is as dangerous as we have ever known. With the country as divided as it assuredly is, a person in a position of leadership who inflames passions with the purpose of perpetuating untruth commits a singularly dangerous sin against the Republic. We Senator-jurors did not all vote in the same way in this impeachment trial. Differences in perception of the facts that were presented are to be expected. So, too, are the differences in our respective estimations of the impact of the outcome of the trial. People of conscience reached different conclusions. National unity does not require unanimity of opinion. But civic unity does require truth. There is one untruth that divides the Nation today like none other: it is that the election was stolen, that there was a massive conspiracy, more secret and widespread than any in human history, so brilliant in execution that no evidence can be found of it and no observer among the tens of thousands in our intelligence agencies will speak of it. That lie brought our Nation to a dark and dangerous place. Invented and disseminated by the President, it poisoned our politics and our public discourse. Like you, I hear many calls for unity. It is apparent that calling for unity while at the same time appeasing the big lie of a stolen election is a fraud. It is the lie that caused the division. It is in the service of that lie that a mob invaded the Capitol on January 6. Now that the impeachment trial is behind us, it falls to each of us to affirm what we all know: President Biden won the election through the legitimate vote of the American people. The division in America will only begin to heal in the light of this truth, a truth which must now be affirmed by each of us in this Chamber. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROMNEY | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS852 | null | 2,350 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Jack and Lydia Clemmons of Charlotte, VT. The Clemmons family's positive impact on Vermont is powerful every single day, but I am especially pleased to recognize them during Black History Month. The Clemmons family has been instrumental in preserving and promoting African-American farm heritage in my home State of Vermont, and for that, I am extremely grateful. In 1962, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons moved to Vermont, where Dr. Clemmons joined the University of Vermont's department of pathology and became the second African-American on the faculty of the College of Medicine. Dr. Clemmons is nationally recognized for his ground-breaking work in perinatal pathology and cytogenetics. He has long advocated for universities to implement recruitment strategies that attract and retain more students and faculty of color. Mrs. Clemmons was the first African-American nurse anesthetist at the University of Vermont Medical Center. During the same year that they began their careers in Burlington, VT, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons purchased a historic farm in Charlotte, which was in need of significant repair and improvement. They raised five children on their farm, while working hard to restore its many buildings and working lands. For the Clemmons family, as 1 of only 17 Black-owned farms in Vermont, the work was always about more than one farm; it was about the massive loss of Black-owned farmland in Vermont and across the Nation. To that end, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons have worked tirelessly to ensure their farm can continue under African-American ownership for generations to come. They, along with their family, have also dedicated themselves to fighting for racial justice and creating opportunities for Vermonters to learn about Black arts, farming, heritage, and culture. The arts are a particular passion of Mrs. Clemmons, who ran ashop in their town of Charlotte, which featured sculptures and other artwork imported from Africa. Additionally, the Clemmons farm is now 1 of 22 official landmarks on Vermont's African-American Heritage Trail, also serving as a multicultural arts center, with a gallery and programming for all Vermonters to enjoy. I am grateful to Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons for their enormously important contribution to Black farming and cultural heritage in our State. I wish the entire Clemmons family all the best today, and for generations to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS854-2 | null | 2,351 |
formal | multicultural | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Jack and Lydia Clemmons of Charlotte, VT. The Clemmons family's positive impact on Vermont is powerful every single day, but I am especially pleased to recognize them during Black History Month. The Clemmons family has been instrumental in preserving and promoting African-American farm heritage in my home State of Vermont, and for that, I am extremely grateful. In 1962, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons moved to Vermont, where Dr. Clemmons joined the University of Vermont's department of pathology and became the second African-American on the faculty of the College of Medicine. Dr. Clemmons is nationally recognized for his ground-breaking work in perinatal pathology and cytogenetics. He has long advocated for universities to implement recruitment strategies that attract and retain more students and faculty of color. Mrs. Clemmons was the first African-American nurse anesthetist at the University of Vermont Medical Center. During the same year that they began their careers in Burlington, VT, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons purchased a historic farm in Charlotte, which was in need of significant repair and improvement. They raised five children on their farm, while working hard to restore its many buildings and working lands. For the Clemmons family, as 1 of only 17 Black-owned farms in Vermont, the work was always about more than one farm; it was about the massive loss of Black-owned farmland in Vermont and across the Nation. To that end, Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons have worked tirelessly to ensure their farm can continue under African-American ownership for generations to come. They, along with their family, have also dedicated themselves to fighting for racial justice and creating opportunities for Vermonters to learn about Black arts, farming, heritage, and culture. The arts are a particular passion of Mrs. Clemmons, who ran ashop in their town of Charlotte, which featured sculptures and other artwork imported from Africa. Additionally, the Clemmons farm is now 1 of 22 official landmarks on Vermont's African-American Heritage Trail, also serving as a multicultural arts center, with a gallery and programming for all Vermonters to enjoy. I am grateful to Dr. and Mrs. Clemmons for their enormously important contribution to Black farming and cultural heritage in our State. I wish the entire Clemmons family all the best today, and for generations to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS854-2 | null | 2,352 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At the request of Mrs. Blackburn, the name of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 25, a bill to restrict certain Federal grants for States that grant driver licenses to illegal immigrants and fail to share information about criminal aliens with the Federal Government. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS858-2 | null | 2,353 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | At the request of Mrs. Blackburn, the name of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 25, a bill to restrict certain Federal grants for States that grant driver licenses to illegal immigrants and fail to share information about criminal aliens with the Federal Government. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS858-2 | null | 2,354 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | At the request of Mrs. Blackburn, the name of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 25, a bill to restrict certain Federal grants for States that grant driver licenses to illegal immigrants and fail to share information about criminal aliens with the Federal Government. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS858-2 | null | 2,355 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is the end of February. Almost exactly a year ago, America was getting its first cases of COVID-19, and they were being reported in the media. We were learning about it but didn't know much at that point. We knew it spread across China. We knew what was happening there. But in the weeks ahead and by the middle of March, just a few weeks from now, our country started going into lockdown. We experienced something we had never experienced as a country: a mandatory shutdown across the entire country, followed by instructions to senior adults and people with comorbidities to stay in their homes and not get out. For millions of those senior adults, they asked the same question almost a year ago: When can I get out of my home? When can I see people? And the answer consistently was: Once there is a vaccine. When we get a vaccine in place, this will be better. We don't know how long that will take, but once we get a vaccine, we will be able to turn this around. Seniors heard that over and over and over and over again for the last 11\1/2\ months. And, now, thankfully, millions of seniors have been vaccinated. We have 42 million Americans that have gone through the full regimen. In my State, almost 20 percent of the adults in my State have already had their vaccine. We are one of the top States in the country, by percentage, getting vaccines out to individuals. Almost every person in every assisted-living nursing home, critical care facility, staff, and residents have been vaccinated. Almost every single senior adult in my State has been fully vaccinated, and we are into the second round now of teachers and those with comorbidities and other folks that has already begun. But interestingly enough, seniors are still asking the same question. I had my shot. I had my second shot. It has now been the 10 days past my second shot, but nothing is changed. A couple of weeks ago, I asked CDC a very simple question. It is the question that I am getting asked that I continue to ask CDC. When will instructions come out on what seniors need to do now? Can they get out? Can they hug their grandkids? Can they go to Walmart? Can guests come to assisted-living facilities? They were all together during Christmas and Halloween and now Valentine's Day, and they are used to having kids come in and sing songs and people come to visit them. None of that happened last year, and now, they are asking a simple question: When will CDC give guidelines for what happens now? CDC currently has said over and over again: Wait. We are thinking about it. We are researching it. CDC needs to act on this. Seniors have been cooped up for a year. They were told months ago, ``Once you get a vaccine, this will get better,'' and they are now finding they had their vaccine and nothing is getting better. They need hope. They need to know the next step. So my simple challenge to CDC has been: Do for the seniors what you did for the schools. CDC put out extensiveguidelines: here is how schools can reopen, it is safe to reopen for schools, here is what needs to be done. Help our seniors out by getting clear guidelines out into the public. Give instructions to assisted-living facilities; give instructions to these grandparents. What do they need to do now that they have been vaccinated? How much travel can they have? What are the risks? And let them make the decisions on it. Folks are counting on them to be able to lay some of the science out there, and it is time to get the information out to those folks so they can make the right decision. CDC, we need you to step up. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS869-5 | null | 2,356 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about the need for all of us to redouble our efforts to combat drug addiction. One of the top priorities I have had in my time in public service has been to combat this crisis, which has devastated so many families, destroyed so many communities, and impacted us in so many negative ways. Unfortunately, under the cover of the coronavirus pandemic, there is an epidemic that is growing, and that is the drug addiction epidemic. It is heartbreaking because we actually had several years of progress. We were making progress, finally, in turning the tide, and now, it is coming back with a vengeance to the point that overdoses and overdose deaths, hospitalizations, and all the other negative consequences of drug addiction is being raised up again in the context of the coronavirus. Here, in the Congress, we have taken a leadership role on addressing this issue. Over the last several years, Congress has appropriated billions of dollars--and not that money solves everything, but the money has been pretty well spent on programs that are actually tested, evidence-based programs on prevention, on treatment, and longer term recovery. Once called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which I authored with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, on the other side of the aisle, there is other legislation, too, called the 21st Century Cures Act. All of this has provided help that goes down to the local level, the community level, to be able to create a network, to be able to push back against the addiction crisis. In 2017, Ohio's overdose opioid death rate was almost three times the national average. Ohio was one of the worst States in the country in terms of our opioid addiction. In terms of opioid deaths, we were top three in the country. It is not something you want to be at the top of. Nearly a dozen Ohioans were dying from these dangerous drugs every single day. This is in 2017. It surpassed car crashes as our country's No. 1 killer among young people and, for Ohio, the No. 1 overall. But that next year, in 2018, much of what we were doing here in Congress, the work again on the CARA Act, the Cures Act, and other things that were being done at the State level and local level that were being supported by our Federal legislation, they were starting to work. So, in 2018, Ohio led the country again, but this time it wasn't in overdose deaths. It was in the reduction of overdose deaths. We actually had a 22-percent reduction from 2017 to 2018. By the way, the same thing happened nationally. We had a reduction in overdose deaths nationally in 2018 for the first time since 1990. Think about that. From 1990 until 2018, every single year, we had more people dying from overdoses in this country, driven in large part by opioids, and, more recently, by the most deadly of opioids, synthetic opioids like fentanyl and Carfentanil. Unfortunately, again, under the cover of this coronavirus pandemic, drug addiction has flourished, and that positive progress has been reversed. It is heartbreaking. While we need to remain committed to solving the healthcare challenges of COVID-19, there is increasing evidence that the stresses of this unprecedented time are driving a spike in drug abuse and subsequent overdoses, this making 2020 the worst year in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths and other measurements of drug addiction. Why? Well, I have asked a lot of people that. Common sense would tell you people are lonelier. Many people are distraught. Maybe they have lost their job. Maybe they have had someone in their family die of COVID-19. People are feeling anxious. People are unable to access recovery programs in person, so they can't go sit down with their recovery coach, which they might have been able to do but for COVID-19 and the isolation that is required. Many of those in recovery from addiction are stalled in their progress, or they are suffering from relapses. There is a story that ran last week about a record number of overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio. It was on FOX 8 in Cleveland. One of the people they interviewed was a Cleveland woman who had lost her son to an overdose. It was pretty powerful. She talked about how important it is for people fighting addiction to have that network of support. It was hard to find during COVID-19. She said: ``An addict needs to talk to someone, they need constant reassuring from their support group.'' She is right. There are a lot of troubling statistics out there that should be a cause for concern and a call to action for all of us. The Centers for Disease Control reported that more than 81,000 people died of drug overdoses in the 12 months ending in May 20 of 2020, the highest 12-month total in our Nation's history. So, again, it looks like 2020 is going to be the worst year ever. The American Medical Association reports that more than 40 States have reported an increase in opioid-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent study in the JAMA Psychiatry journal found that a 45-percent increase was the overdose death increase in emergency rooms from April to October of 2020 compared to that same time in 2019. It would be worse, in my view, without the Federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, including some measures to ensure those suffering from addiction can continue to get the care they need through telehealth. We have cut redtape. We have provided some regulatory relief to expand telehealth and telehealth options specifically for opioid treatment, like eliminating requirements for in-person visits before prescribing lifesaving drugs like buprenorphine. Without these expanded services, I believe the overdose spike would be even worse. Although there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction to help along an individual's journey to recovery, telehealth has kept patients in touch with their doctors at least and allowed physicians to prescribe medication-assisted treatment remotely. In talking to those who are recovery coaches or those doctors back home who specialize in addiction, they tell me they believe that the telehealth option has been extremely important, so even though it has gotten worse, it would have gotten even worse if people had not had at least the ability to access their recovery program through a remote means. Interestingly, these telehealth options for addiction treatments were put in place temporarily, but they have proven to be such a viable option for addiction treatment that now people are talking about making them permanent. I agree with that. I don't think it makes sense to get away from them as this pandemic goes away, which is why yesterday, along with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, I entered this legislation called the Telehealth Response for E-Prescribing Addiction Services Treatment Act. The reason that is such a long name is we wanted to make the acronym TREATS, which it is. The TREATS Act makes permanent a number of temporary waivers for telehealth services and bolsters telehealth options for addiction treatment services. Let's turn to a couple of things specifically. First, it allows for a patient to be prescribed lower-scheduled drugs like Suboxone through a telehealth visit on their first visit, as opposed to having to go in person for that first visit. Current law requires an in-person visit when you need an initial prescription for controlled substances, but this has been a real deterrent for patients in crisis and in urgent need of treatments from Schedule III or ScheduleIV drugs like Suboxone or certain drugs for reoccurring mental health conditions, so our bill is important in that regard. It also limits abusive practices by limiting telehealth visits to those who have both audio and video capabilities to be able to interact with the treatment providers to reduce fraud and abuse when it is your first visit. It would also keep the existing requirements for in-person visits when prescribing Schedule II drugs like opioids or stimulants that are more prone to being abused during these telehealth visits. So we have provisions in there to avoid abuse, but it is important to continue this telehealth option when other options just aren't there. Second, our bill would allow for Medicare to bill for audio-only or telephone telehealth services for mental health and substance abuse treatment if it is not the patient's first visit. Due to distance or access to broadband, in-person visits or even video appointments aren't always possible for our seniors. We still need to focus on safety and robust treatment options, but in order to balance the needs of patients, we propose to allow our Nation's seniors under Medicare to use phones for subsequent mental health or behavioral health visits when they don't have access to the internet and where face-to-face interaction just isn't as necessary. I believe this TREATS legislation will make a difference in the addiction treatment space and will help us prevent more untimely overdoses, but it is also important that we ensure that law enforcement officials can continue to go after the supply of lethal drugs coming into our communities, lethal drugs that are fueling these overdoses. The most important thing, in my view, is reducing the demand dealing with prevention, treatment, and recovery, but by stopping some of the flow of these drugs, among other things, you are reducing the supply, which raises the cost of these drugs on the street. And, unfortunately, some of these drugs are unbelievably inexpensive, given how incredibly powerful and deadly they can be. Data from the Center for Disease Control shows that the biggest driver of these surge in overdose deaths has been the class of drugs called synthetic opioids. We talked about that a moment ago. They are far deadlier than the traditional opioids like heroin but still cause far too many overdoses. The most well known of these drugs, fentanyl, is about 50 times deadlier than heroin, and it is often less expensive. It is illegally manufactured primarily in China, and then it is smuggled across our southern border or through the U.S. mail. A pound of fentanyl is lethal enough to kill half a million people. Think about that. One pound is enough to kill half a million people. We have made some progress keeping it out of the mail system. The STOP Act is now in effect. We are working with the Postal Service and also working with Customs and Border Protection to properly implement that legislation, which I authored on a bipartisan basis here several years ago, and it is finally being implemented to keep our mail system from delivering poison into our communities. But the traffickers have changed patterns, and a lot of it is now going to Mexico and then coming over land across our southern border. Across the country, law enforcement have had their hands full trying to stop the flow of synthetic opioids. Ohio State Patrol troopers seized a total of 129 pounds of fentanyl last year, enough to kill more than 60 million people. We have 11.8 million people in Ohio, but our troopers, just in Ohio, seized enough fentanyl to kill 60 million people. In one Ohio county, Cuyahoga County, there were more than 1,700 seizures of fentanyl by law enforcement in 2020. One DEA initiative to fight drug trafficking that started just last August of 2020 has resulted in the seizure of nearly 440 pounds of fentanyl. Fentanyl itself is a schedule II drug, which means that law enforcement is able to take appropriate actions to crack down on it, and that is good. But there is a hidden challenge with fentanyl, and that is that manufacturers can alter its chemical makeup in a lab to make what is known as a fentanyl analog or a copycat. It is all synthetic. So if some evil chemist somewhere can adjust the formula and make it an analog, it is not subject to the schedule II charges that law enforcement can bring. Because the chemical makeup is different in fentanyl, it is not automatically illegal at all, in fact. What is worse, these copycats can often be deadlier than fentanyl--take, for instance, carfentanil, which is 100 times as deadly as fentanyl and about 10,000 times more deadly than morphine. Just handling carfentanil, if you were to spill some on yourself, can kill you. In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, made the right call by temporarily making these fentanyl-related substances illegal to possess, transport, or manufacture. Thanks to that designation, our law enforcement officials have been better able to protect our communities by seizing and destroying these fentanyl-related substances. Unfortunately, the temporary extension by DEA ends in only a few months. After May 6, 2021, these incredibly dangerous substances will no longer be subject to strict regulation by law enforcement. It will be easier for drug manufacturers in China and elsewhere to flood the United States with carfentanil and other synthetic opioids. We can't allow that to happen. Of course, we can't allow that to happen, which is why yesterday I introduced the bipartisan Federal Initiative to Guarantee Health by Targeting Fentanyl, or FIGHT Fentanyl Act, along with my colleague Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, another State that has been devastated by the opioid epidemic. Our bill simply codifies the existing DEA precedent to permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances, allowing our law enforcement officials to continue to crack down on synthetic opioid in all of its forms. Let's provide some certainty, some predictability here, and make this permanent. Just as importantly, it is going to send a signal to both the American people and the manufacturers and smugglers that produce synthetic opioids that we have not forgotten about this threat, and we are going to do everything in our power to keep these deadly drugs out of our communities. The FIGHT Fentanyl Act and the TREATS Act are a couple of things that we could do right now on a bipartisan basis, and we should. I urge my colleagues to support them. But we have a lot more work to do in the months ahead. The authorization for the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, the CARA bill we talked about earlier, expires in fiscal year 2023. And Senator Whitehouse and I will soon introduce a CARA 2.0 Act to build on the successes of CARA with an unprecedented investment in expanding access to proven treatment and recovery programs--again, programs that are shown to work by evidence for treatment and recovery than longer term recovery. CARA 2.0 includes dozens of provisions to address addiction from all fronts--research and education, treatment and recovery, criminal justice reform, dealing with prescription drugs--making it the most comprehensive legislation in our country's history. When added with the existing CARA programs that are reauthorized through 2023, we would be investing well over $1 billion to address this longstanding epidemic, again, at a time when under the pandemic the epidemic is growing. We need to be sure that as we continue to invest in the coronavirus vaccine development and distribution, we are also focusing on this epidemic. As we come out of this coronavirus pandemic--and I believe we are starting to see some signs of that--let's be sure we are not leaving in its wake more and more deaths and more and more addiction with regard to the drug addiction crisis. We need to all recognize the urgency of working to reverse this surge and nationwide overdoses and overdose deaths. As we emerge from this coronavirus pandemic, let's act now to ensure we have the tools in place to also turn the tide on this disease and get those affected the help they need. I yield my time. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS870 | null | 2,357 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about the need for all of us to redouble our efforts to combat drug addiction. One of the top priorities I have had in my time in public service has been to combat this crisis, which has devastated so many families, destroyed so many communities, and impacted us in so many negative ways. Unfortunately, under the cover of the coronavirus pandemic, there is an epidemic that is growing, and that is the drug addiction epidemic. It is heartbreaking because we actually had several years of progress. We were making progress, finally, in turning the tide, and now, it is coming back with a vengeance to the point that overdoses and overdose deaths, hospitalizations, and all the other negative consequences of drug addiction is being raised up again in the context of the coronavirus. Here, in the Congress, we have taken a leadership role on addressing this issue. Over the last several years, Congress has appropriated billions of dollars--and not that money solves everything, but the money has been pretty well spent on programs that are actually tested, evidence-based programs on prevention, on treatment, and longer term recovery. Once called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which I authored with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, on the other side of the aisle, there is other legislation, too, called the 21st Century Cures Act. All of this has provided help that goes down to the local level, the community level, to be able to create a network, to be able to push back against the addiction crisis. In 2017, Ohio's overdose opioid death rate was almost three times the national average. Ohio was one of the worst States in the country in terms of our opioid addiction. In terms of opioid deaths, we were top three in the country. It is not something you want to be at the top of. Nearly a dozen Ohioans were dying from these dangerous drugs every single day. This is in 2017. It surpassed car crashes as our country's No. 1 killer among young people and, for Ohio, the No. 1 overall. But that next year, in 2018, much of what we were doing here in Congress, the work again on the CARA Act, the Cures Act, and other things that were being done at the State level and local level that were being supported by our Federal legislation, they were starting to work. So, in 2018, Ohio led the country again, but this time it wasn't in overdose deaths. It was in the reduction of overdose deaths. We actually had a 22-percent reduction from 2017 to 2018. By the way, the same thing happened nationally. We had a reduction in overdose deaths nationally in 2018 for the first time since 1990. Think about that. From 1990 until 2018, every single year, we had more people dying from overdoses in this country, driven in large part by opioids, and, more recently, by the most deadly of opioids, synthetic opioids like fentanyl and Carfentanil. Unfortunately, again, under the cover of this coronavirus pandemic, drug addiction has flourished, and that positive progress has been reversed. It is heartbreaking. While we need to remain committed to solving the healthcare challenges of COVID-19, there is increasing evidence that the stresses of this unprecedented time are driving a spike in drug abuse and subsequent overdoses, this making 2020 the worst year in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths and other measurements of drug addiction. Why? Well, I have asked a lot of people that. Common sense would tell you people are lonelier. Many people are distraught. Maybe they have lost their job. Maybe they have had someone in their family die of COVID-19. People are feeling anxious. People are unable to access recovery programs in person, so they can't go sit down with their recovery coach, which they might have been able to do but for COVID-19 and the isolation that is required. Many of those in recovery from addiction are stalled in their progress, or they are suffering from relapses. There is a story that ran last week about a record number of overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio. It was on FOX 8 in Cleveland. One of the people they interviewed was a Cleveland woman who had lost her son to an overdose. It was pretty powerful. She talked about how important it is for people fighting addiction to have that network of support. It was hard to find during COVID-19. She said: ``An addict needs to talk to someone, they need constant reassuring from their support group.'' She is right. There are a lot of troubling statistics out there that should be a cause for concern and a call to action for all of us. The Centers for Disease Control reported that more than 81,000 people died of drug overdoses in the 12 months ending in May 20 of 2020, the highest 12-month total in our Nation's history. So, again, it looks like 2020 is going to be the worst year ever. The American Medical Association reports that more than 40 States have reported an increase in opioid-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent study in the JAMA Psychiatry journal found that a 45-percent increase was the overdose death increase in emergency rooms from April to October of 2020 compared to that same time in 2019. It would be worse, in my view, without the Federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, including some measures to ensure those suffering from addiction can continue to get the care they need through telehealth. We have cut redtape. We have provided some regulatory relief to expand telehealth and telehealth options specifically for opioid treatment, like eliminating requirements for in-person visits before prescribing lifesaving drugs like buprenorphine. Without these expanded services, I believe the overdose spike would be even worse. Although there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction to help along an individual's journey to recovery, telehealth has kept patients in touch with their doctors at least and allowed physicians to prescribe medication-assisted treatment remotely. In talking to those who are recovery coaches or those doctors back home who specialize in addiction, they tell me they believe that the telehealth option has been extremely important, so even though it has gotten worse, it would have gotten even worse if people had not had at least the ability to access their recovery program through a remote means. Interestingly, these telehealth options for addiction treatments were put in place temporarily, but they have proven to be such a viable option for addiction treatment that now people are talking about making them permanent. I agree with that. I don't think it makes sense to get away from them as this pandemic goes away, which is why yesterday, along with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, I entered this legislation called the Telehealth Response for E-Prescribing Addiction Services Treatment Act. The reason that is such a long name is we wanted to make the acronym TREATS, which it is. The TREATS Act makes permanent a number of temporary waivers for telehealth services and bolsters telehealth options for addiction treatment services. Let's turn to a couple of things specifically. First, it allows for a patient to be prescribed lower-scheduled drugs like Suboxone through a telehealth visit on their first visit, as opposed to having to go in person for that first visit. Current law requires an in-person visit when you need an initial prescription for controlled substances, but this has been a real deterrent for patients in crisis and in urgent need of treatments from Schedule III or ScheduleIV drugs like Suboxone or certain drugs for reoccurring mental health conditions, so our bill is important in that regard. It also limits abusive practices by limiting telehealth visits to those who have both audio and video capabilities to be able to interact with the treatment providers to reduce fraud and abuse when it is your first visit. It would also keep the existing requirements for in-person visits when prescribing Schedule II drugs like opioids or stimulants that are more prone to being abused during these telehealth visits. So we have provisions in there to avoid abuse, but it is important to continue this telehealth option when other options just aren't there. Second, our bill would allow for Medicare to bill for audio-only or telephone telehealth services for mental health and substance abuse treatment if it is not the patient's first visit. Due to distance or access to broadband, in-person visits or even video appointments aren't always possible for our seniors. We still need to focus on safety and robust treatment options, but in order to balance the needs of patients, we propose to allow our Nation's seniors under Medicare to use phones for subsequent mental health or behavioral health visits when they don't have access to the internet and where face-to-face interaction just isn't as necessary. I believe this TREATS legislation will make a difference in the addiction treatment space and will help us prevent more untimely overdoses, but it is also important that we ensure that law enforcement officials can continue to go after the supply of lethal drugs coming into our communities, lethal drugs that are fueling these overdoses. The most important thing, in my view, is reducing the demand dealing with prevention, treatment, and recovery, but by stopping some of the flow of these drugs, among other things, you are reducing the supply, which raises the cost of these drugs on the street. And, unfortunately, some of these drugs are unbelievably inexpensive, given how incredibly powerful and deadly they can be. Data from the Center for Disease Control shows that the biggest driver of these surge in overdose deaths has been the class of drugs called synthetic opioids. We talked about that a moment ago. They are far deadlier than the traditional opioids like heroin but still cause far too many overdoses. The most well known of these drugs, fentanyl, is about 50 times deadlier than heroin, and it is often less expensive. It is illegally manufactured primarily in China, and then it is smuggled across our southern border or through the U.S. mail. A pound of fentanyl is lethal enough to kill half a million people. Think about that. One pound is enough to kill half a million people. We have made some progress keeping it out of the mail system. The STOP Act is now in effect. We are working with the Postal Service and also working with Customs and Border Protection to properly implement that legislation, which I authored on a bipartisan basis here several years ago, and it is finally being implemented to keep our mail system from delivering poison into our communities. But the traffickers have changed patterns, and a lot of it is now going to Mexico and then coming over land across our southern border. Across the country, law enforcement have had their hands full trying to stop the flow of synthetic opioids. Ohio State Patrol troopers seized a total of 129 pounds of fentanyl last year, enough to kill more than 60 million people. We have 11.8 million people in Ohio, but our troopers, just in Ohio, seized enough fentanyl to kill 60 million people. In one Ohio county, Cuyahoga County, there were more than 1,700 seizures of fentanyl by law enforcement in 2020. One DEA initiative to fight drug trafficking that started just last August of 2020 has resulted in the seizure of nearly 440 pounds of fentanyl. Fentanyl itself is a schedule II drug, which means that law enforcement is able to take appropriate actions to crack down on it, and that is good. But there is a hidden challenge with fentanyl, and that is that manufacturers can alter its chemical makeup in a lab to make what is known as a fentanyl analog or a copycat. It is all synthetic. So if some evil chemist somewhere can adjust the formula and make it an analog, it is not subject to the schedule II charges that law enforcement can bring. Because the chemical makeup is different in fentanyl, it is not automatically illegal at all, in fact. What is worse, these copycats can often be deadlier than fentanyl--take, for instance, carfentanil, which is 100 times as deadly as fentanyl and about 10,000 times more deadly than morphine. Just handling carfentanil, if you were to spill some on yourself, can kill you. In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, made the right call by temporarily making these fentanyl-related substances illegal to possess, transport, or manufacture. Thanks to that designation, our law enforcement officials have been better able to protect our communities by seizing and destroying these fentanyl-related substances. Unfortunately, the temporary extension by DEA ends in only a few months. After May 6, 2021, these incredibly dangerous substances will no longer be subject to strict regulation by law enforcement. It will be easier for drug manufacturers in China and elsewhere to flood the United States with carfentanil and other synthetic opioids. We can't allow that to happen. Of course, we can't allow that to happen, which is why yesterday I introduced the bipartisan Federal Initiative to Guarantee Health by Targeting Fentanyl, or FIGHT Fentanyl Act, along with my colleague Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, another State that has been devastated by the opioid epidemic. Our bill simply codifies the existing DEA precedent to permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances, allowing our law enforcement officials to continue to crack down on synthetic opioid in all of its forms. Let's provide some certainty, some predictability here, and make this permanent. Just as importantly, it is going to send a signal to both the American people and the manufacturers and smugglers that produce synthetic opioids that we have not forgotten about this threat, and we are going to do everything in our power to keep these deadly drugs out of our communities. The FIGHT Fentanyl Act and the TREATS Act are a couple of things that we could do right now on a bipartisan basis, and we should. I urge my colleagues to support them. But we have a lot more work to do in the months ahead. The authorization for the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, the CARA bill we talked about earlier, expires in fiscal year 2023. And Senator Whitehouse and I will soon introduce a CARA 2.0 Act to build on the successes of CARA with an unprecedented investment in expanding access to proven treatment and recovery programs--again, programs that are shown to work by evidence for treatment and recovery than longer term recovery. CARA 2.0 includes dozens of provisions to address addiction from all fronts--research and education, treatment and recovery, criminal justice reform, dealing with prescription drugs--making it the most comprehensive legislation in our country's history. When added with the existing CARA programs that are reauthorized through 2023, we would be investing well over $1 billion to address this longstanding epidemic, again, at a time when under the pandemic the epidemic is growing. We need to be sure that as we continue to invest in the coronavirus vaccine development and distribution, we are also focusing on this epidemic. As we come out of this coronavirus pandemic--and I believe we are starting to see some signs of that--let's be sure we are not leaving in its wake more and more deaths and more and more addiction with regard to the drug addiction crisis. We need to all recognize the urgency of working to reverse this surge and nationwide overdoses and overdose deaths. As we emerge from this coronavirus pandemic, let's act now to ensure we have the tools in place to also turn the tide on this disease and get those affected the help they need. I yield my time. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS870 | null | 2,358 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about the need for all of us to redouble our efforts to combat drug addiction. One of the top priorities I have had in my time in public service has been to combat this crisis, which has devastated so many families, destroyed so many communities, and impacted us in so many negative ways. Unfortunately, under the cover of the coronavirus pandemic, there is an epidemic that is growing, and that is the drug addiction epidemic. It is heartbreaking because we actually had several years of progress. We were making progress, finally, in turning the tide, and now, it is coming back with a vengeance to the point that overdoses and overdose deaths, hospitalizations, and all the other negative consequences of drug addiction is being raised up again in the context of the coronavirus. Here, in the Congress, we have taken a leadership role on addressing this issue. Over the last several years, Congress has appropriated billions of dollars--and not that money solves everything, but the money has been pretty well spent on programs that are actually tested, evidence-based programs on prevention, on treatment, and longer term recovery. Once called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which I authored with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, on the other side of the aisle, there is other legislation, too, called the 21st Century Cures Act. All of this has provided help that goes down to the local level, the community level, to be able to create a network, to be able to push back against the addiction crisis. In 2017, Ohio's overdose opioid death rate was almost three times the national average. Ohio was one of the worst States in the country in terms of our opioid addiction. In terms of opioid deaths, we were top three in the country. It is not something you want to be at the top of. Nearly a dozen Ohioans were dying from these dangerous drugs every single day. This is in 2017. It surpassed car crashes as our country's No. 1 killer among young people and, for Ohio, the No. 1 overall. But that next year, in 2018, much of what we were doing here in Congress, the work again on the CARA Act, the Cures Act, and other things that were being done at the State level and local level that were being supported by our Federal legislation, they were starting to work. So, in 2018, Ohio led the country again, but this time it wasn't in overdose deaths. It was in the reduction of overdose deaths. We actually had a 22-percent reduction from 2017 to 2018. By the way, the same thing happened nationally. We had a reduction in overdose deaths nationally in 2018 for the first time since 1990. Think about that. From 1990 until 2018, every single year, we had more people dying from overdoses in this country, driven in large part by opioids, and, more recently, by the most deadly of opioids, synthetic opioids like fentanyl and Carfentanil. Unfortunately, again, under the cover of this coronavirus pandemic, drug addiction has flourished, and that positive progress has been reversed. It is heartbreaking. While we need to remain committed to solving the healthcare challenges of COVID-19, there is increasing evidence that the stresses of this unprecedented time are driving a spike in drug abuse and subsequent overdoses, this making 2020 the worst year in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths and other measurements of drug addiction. Why? Well, I have asked a lot of people that. Common sense would tell you people are lonelier. Many people are distraught. Maybe they have lost their job. Maybe they have had someone in their family die of COVID-19. People are feeling anxious. People are unable to access recovery programs in person, so they can't go sit down with their recovery coach, which they might have been able to do but for COVID-19 and the isolation that is required. Many of those in recovery from addiction are stalled in their progress, or they are suffering from relapses. There is a story that ran last week about a record number of overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio. It was on FOX 8 in Cleveland. One of the people they interviewed was a Cleveland woman who had lost her son to an overdose. It was pretty powerful. She talked about how important it is for people fighting addiction to have that network of support. It was hard to find during COVID-19. She said: ``An addict needs to talk to someone, they need constant reassuring from their support group.'' She is right. There are a lot of troubling statistics out there that should be a cause for concern and a call to action for all of us. The Centers for Disease Control reported that more than 81,000 people died of drug overdoses in the 12 months ending in May 20 of 2020, the highest 12-month total in our Nation's history. So, again, it looks like 2020 is going to be the worst year ever. The American Medical Association reports that more than 40 States have reported an increase in opioid-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent study in the JAMA Psychiatry journal found that a 45-percent increase was the overdose death increase in emergency rooms from April to October of 2020 compared to that same time in 2019. It would be worse, in my view, without the Federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, including some measures to ensure those suffering from addiction can continue to get the care they need through telehealth. We have cut redtape. We have provided some regulatory relief to expand telehealth and telehealth options specifically for opioid treatment, like eliminating requirements for in-person visits before prescribing lifesaving drugs like buprenorphine. Without these expanded services, I believe the overdose spike would be even worse. Although there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction to help along an individual's journey to recovery, telehealth has kept patients in touch with their doctors at least and allowed physicians to prescribe medication-assisted treatment remotely. In talking to those who are recovery coaches or those doctors back home who specialize in addiction, they tell me they believe that the telehealth option has been extremely important, so even though it has gotten worse, it would have gotten even worse if people had not had at least the ability to access their recovery program through a remote means. Interestingly, these telehealth options for addiction treatments were put in place temporarily, but they have proven to be such a viable option for addiction treatment that now people are talking about making them permanent. I agree with that. I don't think it makes sense to get away from them as this pandemic goes away, which is why yesterday, along with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, I entered this legislation called the Telehealth Response for E-Prescribing Addiction Services Treatment Act. The reason that is such a long name is we wanted to make the acronym TREATS, which it is. The TREATS Act makes permanent a number of temporary waivers for telehealth services and bolsters telehealth options for addiction treatment services. Let's turn to a couple of things specifically. First, it allows for a patient to be prescribed lower-scheduled drugs like Suboxone through a telehealth visit on their first visit, as opposed to having to go in person for that first visit. Current law requires an in-person visit when you need an initial prescription for controlled substances, but this has been a real deterrent for patients in crisis and in urgent need of treatments from Schedule III or ScheduleIV drugs like Suboxone or certain drugs for reoccurring mental health conditions, so our bill is important in that regard. It also limits abusive practices by limiting telehealth visits to those who have both audio and video capabilities to be able to interact with the treatment providers to reduce fraud and abuse when it is your first visit. It would also keep the existing requirements for in-person visits when prescribing Schedule II drugs like opioids or stimulants that are more prone to being abused during these telehealth visits. So we have provisions in there to avoid abuse, but it is important to continue this telehealth option when other options just aren't there. Second, our bill would allow for Medicare to bill for audio-only or telephone telehealth services for mental health and substance abuse treatment if it is not the patient's first visit. Due to distance or access to broadband, in-person visits or even video appointments aren't always possible for our seniors. We still need to focus on safety and robust treatment options, but in order to balance the needs of patients, we propose to allow our Nation's seniors under Medicare to use phones for subsequent mental health or behavioral health visits when they don't have access to the internet and where face-to-face interaction just isn't as necessary. I believe this TREATS legislation will make a difference in the addiction treatment space and will help us prevent more untimely overdoses, but it is also important that we ensure that law enforcement officials can continue to go after the supply of lethal drugs coming into our communities, lethal drugs that are fueling these overdoses. The most important thing, in my view, is reducing the demand dealing with prevention, treatment, and recovery, but by stopping some of the flow of these drugs, among other things, you are reducing the supply, which raises the cost of these drugs on the street. And, unfortunately, some of these drugs are unbelievably inexpensive, given how incredibly powerful and deadly they can be. Data from the Center for Disease Control shows that the biggest driver of these surge in overdose deaths has been the class of drugs called synthetic opioids. We talked about that a moment ago. They are far deadlier than the traditional opioids like heroin but still cause far too many overdoses. The most well known of these drugs, fentanyl, is about 50 times deadlier than heroin, and it is often less expensive. It is illegally manufactured primarily in China, and then it is smuggled across our southern border or through the U.S. mail. A pound of fentanyl is lethal enough to kill half a million people. Think about that. One pound is enough to kill half a million people. We have made some progress keeping it out of the mail system. The STOP Act is now in effect. We are working with the Postal Service and also working with Customs and Border Protection to properly implement that legislation, which I authored on a bipartisan basis here several years ago, and it is finally being implemented to keep our mail system from delivering poison into our communities. But the traffickers have changed patterns, and a lot of it is now going to Mexico and then coming over land across our southern border. Across the country, law enforcement have had their hands full trying to stop the flow of synthetic opioids. Ohio State Patrol troopers seized a total of 129 pounds of fentanyl last year, enough to kill more than 60 million people. We have 11.8 million people in Ohio, but our troopers, just in Ohio, seized enough fentanyl to kill 60 million people. In one Ohio county, Cuyahoga County, there were more than 1,700 seizures of fentanyl by law enforcement in 2020. One DEA initiative to fight drug trafficking that started just last August of 2020 has resulted in the seizure of nearly 440 pounds of fentanyl. Fentanyl itself is a schedule II drug, which means that law enforcement is able to take appropriate actions to crack down on it, and that is good. But there is a hidden challenge with fentanyl, and that is that manufacturers can alter its chemical makeup in a lab to make what is known as a fentanyl analog or a copycat. It is all synthetic. So if some evil chemist somewhere can adjust the formula and make it an analog, it is not subject to the schedule II charges that law enforcement can bring. Because the chemical makeup is different in fentanyl, it is not automatically illegal at all, in fact. What is worse, these copycats can often be deadlier than fentanyl--take, for instance, carfentanil, which is 100 times as deadly as fentanyl and about 10,000 times more deadly than morphine. Just handling carfentanil, if you were to spill some on yourself, can kill you. In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, made the right call by temporarily making these fentanyl-related substances illegal to possess, transport, or manufacture. Thanks to that designation, our law enforcement officials have been better able to protect our communities by seizing and destroying these fentanyl-related substances. Unfortunately, the temporary extension by DEA ends in only a few months. After May 6, 2021, these incredibly dangerous substances will no longer be subject to strict regulation by law enforcement. It will be easier for drug manufacturers in China and elsewhere to flood the United States with carfentanil and other synthetic opioids. We can't allow that to happen. Of course, we can't allow that to happen, which is why yesterday I introduced the bipartisan Federal Initiative to Guarantee Health by Targeting Fentanyl, or FIGHT Fentanyl Act, along with my colleague Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, another State that has been devastated by the opioid epidemic. Our bill simply codifies the existing DEA precedent to permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances, allowing our law enforcement officials to continue to crack down on synthetic opioid in all of its forms. Let's provide some certainty, some predictability here, and make this permanent. Just as importantly, it is going to send a signal to both the American people and the manufacturers and smugglers that produce synthetic opioids that we have not forgotten about this threat, and we are going to do everything in our power to keep these deadly drugs out of our communities. The FIGHT Fentanyl Act and the TREATS Act are a couple of things that we could do right now on a bipartisan basis, and we should. I urge my colleagues to support them. But we have a lot more work to do in the months ahead. The authorization for the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, the CARA bill we talked about earlier, expires in fiscal year 2023. And Senator Whitehouse and I will soon introduce a CARA 2.0 Act to build on the successes of CARA with an unprecedented investment in expanding access to proven treatment and recovery programs--again, programs that are shown to work by evidence for treatment and recovery than longer term recovery. CARA 2.0 includes dozens of provisions to address addiction from all fronts--research and education, treatment and recovery, criminal justice reform, dealing with prescription drugs--making it the most comprehensive legislation in our country's history. When added with the existing CARA programs that are reauthorized through 2023, we would be investing well over $1 billion to address this longstanding epidemic, again, at a time when under the pandemic the epidemic is growing. We need to be sure that as we continue to invest in the coronavirus vaccine development and distribution, we are also focusing on this epidemic. As we come out of this coronavirus pandemic--and I believe we are starting to see some signs of that--let's be sure we are not leaving in its wake more and more deaths and more and more addiction with regard to the drug addiction crisis. We need to all recognize the urgency of working to reverse this surge and nationwide overdoses and overdose deaths. As we emerge from this coronavirus pandemic, let's act now to ensure we have the tools in place to also turn the tide on this disease and get those affected the help they need. I yield my time. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS870 | null | 2,359 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk about the need for all of us to redouble our efforts to combat drug addiction. One of the top priorities I have had in my time in public service has been to combat this crisis, which has devastated so many families, destroyed so many communities, and impacted us in so many negative ways. Unfortunately, under the cover of the coronavirus pandemic, there is an epidemic that is growing, and that is the drug addiction epidemic. It is heartbreaking because we actually had several years of progress. We were making progress, finally, in turning the tide, and now, it is coming back with a vengeance to the point that overdoses and overdose deaths, hospitalizations, and all the other negative consequences of drug addiction is being raised up again in the context of the coronavirus. Here, in the Congress, we have taken a leadership role on addressing this issue. Over the last several years, Congress has appropriated billions of dollars--and not that money solves everything, but the money has been pretty well spent on programs that are actually tested, evidence-based programs on prevention, on treatment, and longer term recovery. Once called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which I authored with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, on the other side of the aisle, there is other legislation, too, called the 21st Century Cures Act. All of this has provided help that goes down to the local level, the community level, to be able to create a network, to be able to push back against the addiction crisis. In 2017, Ohio's overdose opioid death rate was almost three times the national average. Ohio was one of the worst States in the country in terms of our opioid addiction. In terms of opioid deaths, we were top three in the country. It is not something you want to be at the top of. Nearly a dozen Ohioans were dying from these dangerous drugs every single day. This is in 2017. It surpassed car crashes as our country's No. 1 killer among young people and, for Ohio, the No. 1 overall. But that next year, in 2018, much of what we were doing here in Congress, the work again on the CARA Act, the Cures Act, and other things that were being done at the State level and local level that were being supported by our Federal legislation, they were starting to work. So, in 2018, Ohio led the country again, but this time it wasn't in overdose deaths. It was in the reduction of overdose deaths. We actually had a 22-percent reduction from 2017 to 2018. By the way, the same thing happened nationally. We had a reduction in overdose deaths nationally in 2018 for the first time since 1990. Think about that. From 1990 until 2018, every single year, we had more people dying from overdoses in this country, driven in large part by opioids, and, more recently, by the most deadly of opioids, synthetic opioids like fentanyl and Carfentanil. Unfortunately, again, under the cover of this coronavirus pandemic, drug addiction has flourished, and that positive progress has been reversed. It is heartbreaking. While we need to remain committed to solving the healthcare challenges of COVID-19, there is increasing evidence that the stresses of this unprecedented time are driving a spike in drug abuse and subsequent overdoses, this making 2020 the worst year in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths and other measurements of drug addiction. Why? Well, I have asked a lot of people that. Common sense would tell you people are lonelier. Many people are distraught. Maybe they have lost their job. Maybe they have had someone in their family die of COVID-19. People are feeling anxious. People are unable to access recovery programs in person, so they can't go sit down with their recovery coach, which they might have been able to do but for COVID-19 and the isolation that is required. Many of those in recovery from addiction are stalled in their progress, or they are suffering from relapses. There is a story that ran last week about a record number of overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio. It was on FOX 8 in Cleveland. One of the people they interviewed was a Cleveland woman who had lost her son to an overdose. It was pretty powerful. She talked about how important it is for people fighting addiction to have that network of support. It was hard to find during COVID-19. She said: ``An addict needs to talk to someone, they need constant reassuring from their support group.'' She is right. There are a lot of troubling statistics out there that should be a cause for concern and a call to action for all of us. The Centers for Disease Control reported that more than 81,000 people died of drug overdoses in the 12 months ending in May 20 of 2020, the highest 12-month total in our Nation's history. So, again, it looks like 2020 is going to be the worst year ever. The American Medical Association reports that more than 40 States have reported an increase in opioid-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent study in the JAMA Psychiatry journal found that a 45-percent increase was the overdose death increase in emergency rooms from April to October of 2020 compared to that same time in 2019. It would be worse, in my view, without the Federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, including some measures to ensure those suffering from addiction can continue to get the care they need through telehealth. We have cut redtape. We have provided some regulatory relief to expand telehealth and telehealth options specifically for opioid treatment, like eliminating requirements for in-person visits before prescribing lifesaving drugs like buprenorphine. Without these expanded services, I believe the overdose spike would be even worse. Although there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction to help along an individual's journey to recovery, telehealth has kept patients in touch with their doctors at least and allowed physicians to prescribe medication-assisted treatment remotely. In talking to those who are recovery coaches or those doctors back home who specialize in addiction, they tell me they believe that the telehealth option has been extremely important, so even though it has gotten worse, it would have gotten even worse if people had not had at least the ability to access their recovery program through a remote means. Interestingly, these telehealth options for addiction treatments were put in place temporarily, but they have proven to be such a viable option for addiction treatment that now people are talking about making them permanent. I agree with that. I don't think it makes sense to get away from them as this pandemic goes away, which is why yesterday, along with my colleague, Sheldon Whitehouse, I entered this legislation called the Telehealth Response for E-Prescribing Addiction Services Treatment Act. The reason that is such a long name is we wanted to make the acronym TREATS, which it is. The TREATS Act makes permanent a number of temporary waivers for telehealth services and bolsters telehealth options for addiction treatment services. Let's turn to a couple of things specifically. First, it allows for a patient to be prescribed lower-scheduled drugs like Suboxone through a telehealth visit on their first visit, as opposed to having to go in person for that first visit. Current law requires an in-person visit when you need an initial prescription for controlled substances, but this has been a real deterrent for patients in crisis and in urgent need of treatments from Schedule III or ScheduleIV drugs like Suboxone or certain drugs for reoccurring mental health conditions, so our bill is important in that regard. It also limits abusive practices by limiting telehealth visits to those who have both audio and video capabilities to be able to interact with the treatment providers to reduce fraud and abuse when it is your first visit. It would also keep the existing requirements for in-person visits when prescribing Schedule II drugs like opioids or stimulants that are more prone to being abused during these telehealth visits. So we have provisions in there to avoid abuse, but it is important to continue this telehealth option when other options just aren't there. Second, our bill would allow for Medicare to bill for audio-only or telephone telehealth services for mental health and substance abuse treatment if it is not the patient's first visit. Due to distance or access to broadband, in-person visits or even video appointments aren't always possible for our seniors. We still need to focus on safety and robust treatment options, but in order to balance the needs of patients, we propose to allow our Nation's seniors under Medicare to use phones for subsequent mental health or behavioral health visits when they don't have access to the internet and where face-to-face interaction just isn't as necessary. I believe this TREATS legislation will make a difference in the addiction treatment space and will help us prevent more untimely overdoses, but it is also important that we ensure that law enforcement officials can continue to go after the supply of lethal drugs coming into our communities, lethal drugs that are fueling these overdoses. The most important thing, in my view, is reducing the demand dealing with prevention, treatment, and recovery, but by stopping some of the flow of these drugs, among other things, you are reducing the supply, which raises the cost of these drugs on the street. And, unfortunately, some of these drugs are unbelievably inexpensive, given how incredibly powerful and deadly they can be. Data from the Center for Disease Control shows that the biggest driver of these surge in overdose deaths has been the class of drugs called synthetic opioids. We talked about that a moment ago. They are far deadlier than the traditional opioids like heroin but still cause far too many overdoses. The most well known of these drugs, fentanyl, is about 50 times deadlier than heroin, and it is often less expensive. It is illegally manufactured primarily in China, and then it is smuggled across our southern border or through the U.S. mail. A pound of fentanyl is lethal enough to kill half a million people. Think about that. One pound is enough to kill half a million people. We have made some progress keeping it out of the mail system. The STOP Act is now in effect. We are working with the Postal Service and also working with Customs and Border Protection to properly implement that legislation, which I authored on a bipartisan basis here several years ago, and it is finally being implemented to keep our mail system from delivering poison into our communities. But the traffickers have changed patterns, and a lot of it is now going to Mexico and then coming over land across our southern border. Across the country, law enforcement have had their hands full trying to stop the flow of synthetic opioids. Ohio State Patrol troopers seized a total of 129 pounds of fentanyl last year, enough to kill more than 60 million people. We have 11.8 million people in Ohio, but our troopers, just in Ohio, seized enough fentanyl to kill 60 million people. In one Ohio county, Cuyahoga County, there were more than 1,700 seizures of fentanyl by law enforcement in 2020. One DEA initiative to fight drug trafficking that started just last August of 2020 has resulted in the seizure of nearly 440 pounds of fentanyl. Fentanyl itself is a schedule II drug, which means that law enforcement is able to take appropriate actions to crack down on it, and that is good. But there is a hidden challenge with fentanyl, and that is that manufacturers can alter its chemical makeup in a lab to make what is known as a fentanyl analog or a copycat. It is all synthetic. So if some evil chemist somewhere can adjust the formula and make it an analog, it is not subject to the schedule II charges that law enforcement can bring. Because the chemical makeup is different in fentanyl, it is not automatically illegal at all, in fact. What is worse, these copycats can often be deadlier than fentanyl--take, for instance, carfentanil, which is 100 times as deadly as fentanyl and about 10,000 times more deadly than morphine. Just handling carfentanil, if you were to spill some on yourself, can kill you. In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, made the right call by temporarily making these fentanyl-related substances illegal to possess, transport, or manufacture. Thanks to that designation, our law enforcement officials have been better able to protect our communities by seizing and destroying these fentanyl-related substances. Unfortunately, the temporary extension by DEA ends in only a few months. After May 6, 2021, these incredibly dangerous substances will no longer be subject to strict regulation by law enforcement. It will be easier for drug manufacturers in China and elsewhere to flood the United States with carfentanil and other synthetic opioids. We can't allow that to happen. Of course, we can't allow that to happen, which is why yesterday I introduced the bipartisan Federal Initiative to Guarantee Health by Targeting Fentanyl, or FIGHT Fentanyl Act, along with my colleague Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, another State that has been devastated by the opioid epidemic. Our bill simply codifies the existing DEA precedent to permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances, allowing our law enforcement officials to continue to crack down on synthetic opioid in all of its forms. Let's provide some certainty, some predictability here, and make this permanent. Just as importantly, it is going to send a signal to both the American people and the manufacturers and smugglers that produce synthetic opioids that we have not forgotten about this threat, and we are going to do everything in our power to keep these deadly drugs out of our communities. The FIGHT Fentanyl Act and the TREATS Act are a couple of things that we could do right now on a bipartisan basis, and we should. I urge my colleagues to support them. But we have a lot more work to do in the months ahead. The authorization for the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, the CARA bill we talked about earlier, expires in fiscal year 2023. And Senator Whitehouse and I will soon introduce a CARA 2.0 Act to build on the successes of CARA with an unprecedented investment in expanding access to proven treatment and recovery programs--again, programs that are shown to work by evidence for treatment and recovery than longer term recovery. CARA 2.0 includes dozens of provisions to address addiction from all fronts--research and education, treatment and recovery, criminal justice reform, dealing with prescription drugs--making it the most comprehensive legislation in our country's history. When added with the existing CARA programs that are reauthorized through 2023, we would be investing well over $1 billion to address this longstanding epidemic, again, at a time when under the pandemic the epidemic is growing. We need to be sure that as we continue to invest in the coronavirus vaccine development and distribution, we are also focusing on this epidemic. As we come out of this coronavirus pandemic--and I believe we are starting to see some signs of that--let's be sure we are not leaving in its wake more and more deaths and more and more addiction with regard to the drug addiction crisis. We need to all recognize the urgency of working to reverse this surge and nationwide overdoses and overdose deaths. As we emerge from this coronavirus pandemic, let's act now to ensure we have the tools in place to also turn the tide on this disease and get those affected the help they need. I yield my time. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-24-pt1-PgS870 | null | 2,360 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC. February 25, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Section 102(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) requires the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) to biennially submit a report containing recommendations regarding Federal workplace rights, safety and health, and public access laws and regulations that should be made applicable to Congress and its agencies. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the rights afforded by the CAA to legislative branch employees and visitors to Capitol Hill and district and state offices remain equivalent to those in the private sector and the executive branch of the Federal Government. As such, these recommendations support the intent of Congress to keep pace with advances in workplace rights and public access laws. Accompanying this letter is a copy of the Board's Section 102(b) Report for the 117th Congress. This report was submitted electronically to you and President Pro Tempore Grassley on December 31, 2020, which was the filing date required by statute. We welcome discussion on these issues and urge that Congress act on these important recommendations. As required by the CAA, we request that this publication be printed in the Congressional Record and referred to the Committee on House Administration as the committee of the U.S. House of Representatives with jurisdiction. Sincerely, Susan Tsui Grundmann. Executive Director, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Attachment. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgH721 | null | 2,361 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, the Senate is laser-focused on confirming President Biden's impressive Cabinet while paving the way for another round of urgent COVID relief. The two tasks will remain the top Senate priorities over the next several weeks. By the end of this week, the Senate will have confirmed three Cabinet-level officials--the U.N. Ambassador and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy--and will have set up confirmation votes early next week for the Secretaries of Education and Commerce and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. This week, Senate committees also held confirmation hearings on scores of other nominations, including the President's candidates for Attorney General, HHS Secretary, Interior Secretary, CIA Director, Surgeon General, and U.S. Trade Representative At the same time, Democrats are preparing to proceed with the urgently needed President Biden American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion lifeline that will lay the foundation for economic recovery and a return to life as normal. We have come a long way in our fight against COVID, but we still have a long way to go. Over 60 million vaccinations have now been administered across the country. Death rates are finally, finally declining. But while the trends are headed in the right direction, more Americans are still dying per day than at any point during the worst weeks of last summer. The same goes for our economy. While there are green shoots, our country remains 10 million jobs short of where we were last February--10 million jobs short. That is nothing to trifle with or pass over. Today's report on new jobless claims was the 49th week that the number was higher than at any point during the great recession. Let me repeat that. Today's report on the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits for the first time was the 49th week during the COVID pandemic that new unemployment claims were higher than at any point during the great recession. In the words of Fed Chairman Powell, hardly a big liberal, ``The economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain.'' That is from a very serious, staid man not prone to any hyperbole at all. But what he is telling us is simple: We cannot take our foot off the gas. We cannot slow down before the race is won. We must proceed boldly and decisively. Senate Democrats will move forward on the American Rescue Plan as soon as possible. The bill will erase any doubt that the American people, businesses, families, workers will have the resources that they need until we can defeat the virus and our economy comes roaring back. The American people should expect nothing less. Just yesterday, over 150 executives from the Nation's business community said that taking action on the American Rescue Plan is the right thing to do. The business community is firmly lined up behind this plan. Earlier this month, 400 mayors from both parties, Democratic and Republican, sent a letter to Congress supporting the plan and the help it provides to keep teachers and firefighters and other essential public employees on the job. In poll after poll, the American public overwhelmingly supports congressional action on a bold COVID relief package, a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans. As many as 7 in 10 Americans support the American Rescue Plan. There is a clear, bipartisan, nationwide mandate to act, and that is just what the Senate is going to do--a clear, bipartisan, nationwide mandate to act, and that is what we will do. Now, from the start, we had hoped this effort would be bipartisan. As I said before, there is nothing about the budget process that precludes bipartisanship. The same process has been used no fewer than 17 times to produce major bipartisan legislation. But it seems that despite the historic nature of the crisis, despite the clear and pressing needs of the country, despite the support of mayors and Governors and economists and business leaders from across the political spectrum, anddespite the popularity of the legislation with the American people, my Republican colleagues are organizing to oppose the next round of COVID relief. A report in CNN suggested that Republican leaders were ``maneuvering'' to keep every single Republican from supporting the American Rescue Plan, an exercise in pure partisanship. We have started to hear the same predictable objections in almost the same exact words that Republicans use in response to nearly every piece of Democratic legislation: ``a liberal wish list''; ``socialism.'' One Republican Member said that the American Rescue Plan was ``to the left of Lenin.'' Seriously, to the left of Lenin? Money for schools, vaccines, direct checks to struggling American families--checks that nearly every Member of the Senate supported just a few months ago--now it is to the left of Lenin? This kind of reflexive partisan opposition is not going to wash with the American people. It wouldn't wash at any time, but it especially doesn't wash during this time of crisis. The American people have all heard it before, and they know the country needs help. All week our Republican colleagues have been raising concerns about school closures. Well, I will tell you what, we all want to open schools. We all want them to reopen. We are all concerned, though, about the cost of remote learning on children and parents. So are the teachers. So are the children. So are the parents. But how about we actually give schools the funding they need to reopen as quickly and safely as possible? That funding is in the American Rescue Plan. While our Republican colleagues are cynically attacking teachers--something they have done for decades--the school districts in their States are telling them they need more funding. Their school districts are telling them they need more funding to hire extra teachers and reduce class size, to change the infrastructure of their schools to increase social distancing, to hire tutors for summer school and the fall to help our children make up for lost time. The education commissioner for the State of Nebraska, hardly a Democratic stronghold, put it simply: ``There's a lot of damage to repair.'' Our Republican colleagues want schools to reopen. So do we. But what about actually doing something to make that happen as safely and as quickly as possible? It seems my Republican colleagues have even taken issue with the tiny amount of funding in the bill that goes to a bridge in New York. They say: Look, a pork-barrel earmark from the Democratic leader, totally non-COVID-related. The truth is, this is one of the only bridges operated by the Federal Government. Its revenues for operating expenses have collapsed because of COVID. No one is using the bridge. Ironically, the bridge is located in a district represented in the House by a Republican. And the request for this funding wasn't made by me or any Democrat, for that matter. It came from the Trump administration 5 months ago. I learned about it being in the bill when I read about it in the newspaper. That is how silly the talking points of the other side have gotten. Republicans are not happy about a small provision in the bill requested by the previous Republican administration, so they are going to oppose direct checks to struggling families, another round of assistance for small businesses, and money for schools and vaccinations. The argument is absurd and, we know, a total excuse. Look, we Democrats would prefer to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass this bill. We had an open, bipartisan amendment process on the budget resolution. We have already included many bipartisan amendments the Senate adopted into this new reconciliation bill. The first amendment we put on the floor for the restaurants was bipartisan, and that was the first amendment I put on the floor as majority leader, showing my intent to be bipartisan. But, at the end of the day, we cannot let obstructionism stop us. At the end of the day, the American people sent us here with a job to do. The bottom line is simple: We are still in a historic crisis of the health of the economy. The American people know we are in a historic crisis. And the Senate will soon take action on our plan to solve this crisis, a plan with overwhelming public support. Our Republican colleagues will have to decide whether they will work with us to approve the legislation or obstruct it to the bitter end I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS873-5 | null | 2,362 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, the Senate is laser-focused on confirming President Biden's impressive Cabinet while paving the way for another round of urgent COVID relief. The two tasks will remain the top Senate priorities over the next several weeks. By the end of this week, the Senate will have confirmed three Cabinet-level officials--the U.N. Ambassador and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy--and will have set up confirmation votes early next week for the Secretaries of Education and Commerce and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. This week, Senate committees also held confirmation hearings on scores of other nominations, including the President's candidates for Attorney General, HHS Secretary, Interior Secretary, CIA Director, Surgeon General, and U.S. Trade Representative At the same time, Democrats are preparing to proceed with the urgently needed President Biden American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion lifeline that will lay the foundation for economic recovery and a return to life as normal. We have come a long way in our fight against COVID, but we still have a long way to go. Over 60 million vaccinations have now been administered across the country. Death rates are finally, finally declining. But while the trends are headed in the right direction, more Americans are still dying per day than at any point during the worst weeks of last summer. The same goes for our economy. While there are green shoots, our country remains 10 million jobs short of where we were last February--10 million jobs short. That is nothing to trifle with or pass over. Today's report on new jobless claims was the 49th week that the number was higher than at any point during the great recession. Let me repeat that. Today's report on the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits for the first time was the 49th week during the COVID pandemic that new unemployment claims were higher than at any point during the great recession. In the words of Fed Chairman Powell, hardly a big liberal, ``The economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain.'' That is from a very serious, staid man not prone to any hyperbole at all. But what he is telling us is simple: We cannot take our foot off the gas. We cannot slow down before the race is won. We must proceed boldly and decisively. Senate Democrats will move forward on the American Rescue Plan as soon as possible. The bill will erase any doubt that the American people, businesses, families, workers will have the resources that they need until we can defeat the virus and our economy comes roaring back. The American people should expect nothing less. Just yesterday, over 150 executives from the Nation's business community said that taking action on the American Rescue Plan is the right thing to do. The business community is firmly lined up behind this plan. Earlier this month, 400 mayors from both parties, Democratic and Republican, sent a letter to Congress supporting the plan and the help it provides to keep teachers and firefighters and other essential public employees on the job. In poll after poll, the American public overwhelmingly supports congressional action on a bold COVID relief package, a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans. As many as 7 in 10 Americans support the American Rescue Plan. There is a clear, bipartisan, nationwide mandate to act, and that is just what the Senate is going to do--a clear, bipartisan, nationwide mandate to act, and that is what we will do. Now, from the start, we had hoped this effort would be bipartisan. As I said before, there is nothing about the budget process that precludes bipartisanship. The same process has been used no fewer than 17 times to produce major bipartisan legislation. But it seems that despite the historic nature of the crisis, despite the clear and pressing needs of the country, despite the support of mayors and Governors and economists and business leaders from across the political spectrum, anddespite the popularity of the legislation with the American people, my Republican colleagues are organizing to oppose the next round of COVID relief. A report in CNN suggested that Republican leaders were ``maneuvering'' to keep every single Republican from supporting the American Rescue Plan, an exercise in pure partisanship. We have started to hear the same predictable objections in almost the same exact words that Republicans use in response to nearly every piece of Democratic legislation: ``a liberal wish list''; ``socialism.'' One Republican Member said that the American Rescue Plan was ``to the left of Lenin.'' Seriously, to the left of Lenin? Money for schools, vaccines, direct checks to struggling American families--checks that nearly every Member of the Senate supported just a few months ago--now it is to the left of Lenin? This kind of reflexive partisan opposition is not going to wash with the American people. It wouldn't wash at any time, but it especially doesn't wash during this time of crisis. The American people have all heard it before, and they know the country needs help. All week our Republican colleagues have been raising concerns about school closures. Well, I will tell you what, we all want to open schools. We all want them to reopen. We are all concerned, though, about the cost of remote learning on children and parents. So are the teachers. So are the children. So are the parents. But how about we actually give schools the funding they need to reopen as quickly and safely as possible? That funding is in the American Rescue Plan. While our Republican colleagues are cynically attacking teachers--something they have done for decades--the school districts in their States are telling them they need more funding. Their school districts are telling them they need more funding to hire extra teachers and reduce class size, to change the infrastructure of their schools to increase social distancing, to hire tutors for summer school and the fall to help our children make up for lost time. The education commissioner for the State of Nebraska, hardly a Democratic stronghold, put it simply: ``There's a lot of damage to repair.'' Our Republican colleagues want schools to reopen. So do we. But what about actually doing something to make that happen as safely and as quickly as possible? It seems my Republican colleagues have even taken issue with the tiny amount of funding in the bill that goes to a bridge in New York. They say: Look, a pork-barrel earmark from the Democratic leader, totally non-COVID-related. The truth is, this is one of the only bridges operated by the Federal Government. Its revenues for operating expenses have collapsed because of COVID. No one is using the bridge. Ironically, the bridge is located in a district represented in the House by a Republican. And the request for this funding wasn't made by me or any Democrat, for that matter. It came from the Trump administration 5 months ago. I learned about it being in the bill when I read about it in the newspaper. That is how silly the talking points of the other side have gotten. Republicans are not happy about a small provision in the bill requested by the previous Republican administration, so they are going to oppose direct checks to struggling families, another round of assistance for small businesses, and money for schools and vaccinations. The argument is absurd and, we know, a total excuse. Look, we Democrats would prefer to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass this bill. We had an open, bipartisan amendment process on the budget resolution. We have already included many bipartisan amendments the Senate adopted into this new reconciliation bill. The first amendment we put on the floor for the restaurants was bipartisan, and that was the first amendment I put on the floor as majority leader, showing my intent to be bipartisan. But, at the end of the day, we cannot let obstructionism stop us. At the end of the day, the American people sent us here with a job to do. The bottom line is simple: We are still in a historic crisis of the health of the economy. The American people know we are in a historic crisis. And the Senate will soon take action on our plan to solve this crisis, a plan with overwhelming public support. Our Republican colleagues will have to decide whether they will work with us to approve the legislation or obstruct it to the bitter end I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS873-5 | null | 2,363 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, next week, House Democrats say they will try to recycle failed legislation that would have Washington Democrats grab unprecedented power over how America conducts its elections and how American citizens can engage in political speech. For several years now, we have seen the political left grow less interested in having normal policy debates within our governing institutions and more interested in attacking the institutions themselves to tilt the playing field in their side's favor. When their side loses a Presidential election, it is not their fault; it is the electoral college's. When they don't like a Supreme Court's decision, it is time to threaten the Justices or pack the Court. When longstanding Senate rules threaten to frustrate far-left proposals, it is the Senate rules they want to change. And now House Democrats want to try to use their slim majority to unilaterally rewrite and nationalize election law itself. They want to use the temporary power the voters have granted them to try to ensure they will never have to relinquish it. This year's version of the House Democrats' legislation contains the same bad ideas as their efforts 2 years ago. For example, when the Federal Election Commission was created after Watergate with the sensitive job of regulating American politics, it was designed to require bipartisan consensus. House Democrats want to scrap those rules and turn the FEC from an even-numbered body, bipartisan body, to an odd-numbered partisan body so Democrats can dominate it. Then they want to hand the newly partisan FEC new authorities to scrutinize and regulate an even wider share of political speech and private citizens' activities. Or take election law itself--House Democrats have looked at the division and the disunity of the last several months and decided that what American elections really need is a one-size-fits-all partisan rewrite by one side here in Washington. In our country, States and localities run elections. Those of us in the Federal Government do not get a stranglehold over the ways in which voters decide our fates. But House Democrats want to change that. Their bill would take prudential questions about early voting, registration, and no-excuse absentee balloting and resolve them one way for the entire Nation. They want to force all 50 States to allow the absurd practice of ballot harvesting, where paid operatives can show up at polling places carrying a thick stack of filled-out ballots with other people's names on them. They want to forbid States from implementing voter ID or doing simple things like checking their voter rolls against change-of-address submissions. They want to mandate no-excuse mail-in balloting as a permanent norm, post-pandemic. And--I promise I am not making this up--their bill proposes to directly fund political campaigns with Federal tax dollars. They want to raise money through new financial penalties, which the government would then use to fund campaigns and consultants. It is a strange idea. It takes a minute to kind of wrap your head around it. They want the Federal Government itself to send money for things like political ads that half the country disagrees with. What a bizarre concept that nobody is asking for. This sweeping Federal takeover would be exactly the wrong response to the distressing lack of faith in our elections that we have recently seen from both political sides. After both 2016 and 2020, we saw significant numbers of Americans on the losing side express doubt in the validity of the result. As recently as late last September, fewer than half of Democrats said they were confident the 2020 election would be free and fair. Just weeks later, however, by mid-November, once things had gone the way they wanted, Democrats' confidence in the election magically skyrocketed up to 90 percent. We cannot keep trending toward a future where Americans' confidence in elections is purely a function of which side won. A sweeping power grab by House Democrats, forcibly rewriting 50 States' election laws, would shove us further and faster down that path. In this country, if the people who win elections want to hold on to power, they need to perform well, pass sound policies, and earn the support of the voters again. House Democrats do not get to take their razor-thin majority, which voters just shrunk, and use it to steamroll States and localities to try to prevent themselves from losing even more seats the next time. Protecting democracy cannot be a partisan issue | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS875-2 | null | 2,364 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week America reached a heartbreaking milestone, one that would have seemed unthinkable a year ago. We have now lost more than 500,000 Americans to the COVID-19 pandemic. That is one in every five COVID-19 deaths in the world. We have lost mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. On Monday evening, President Biden, Vice President Harris, and their spouses remembered all of these lost souls in a moving ceremony at the White House. Behind them, 500 flickering candles lined the White House stairs, each candle representing a thousand lives cut short by the virus, a thousand grieving families. In addition, more than 28 million Americans have been infected by the coronavirus in this pandemic No State, no community in America, has been spared in this sadness. In my State of Illinois, COVID-19 has claimed more than 20,000 lives. My heart goes out to and every American trying to survive in this terribly difficult year. I have heard others say, and I agree: This pandemic will not break us, but it is showing us where we are broken.Like so many other diseases and health conditions, the pandemic has inflicted disproportionate harm on people and communities of color--Black Americans, Native Americans, and members of the Latinx community. Black Americans get sick and die of COVID at 1.5 times the rate of White Americans. Despite their greater risks of infection and death, people of color are receiving COVID vaccinations at less than half the rate as White Americans. In Illinois, Black residents make up 15 percent and Latinx residents make up 18 percent of our State's population, yet each group accounts foronly 8 percent of the COVID vaccines allocated so far. Sadly, these statistics come as no surprise. America has a long history of medical inequality. From premature births to premature deaths, people of color suffer disproportionately from America's troubled health care system. People of color in America suffer more chronic and acute health conditions. They are more likely to go without needed medical care, and they have shorter life expectancies. According to new estimates from the CDC, life expectancy in the United States fell by a full year as COVID-19 swept through the Nation last year--the steepest decline in life expectancy since World War II. Again, the pain was unequal. Latinx Americans' life expectancy declined by 2 years and Black Americans' by 3 years. The reasons for the disparities are many and varied, but they include unequal access to affordable healthcare, inadequate research, and too few healthcare professionals of color. Martin Luther King called healthcare inequality ``the most shocking and inhumane'' form of injustice. Far too often, this inequality begins even before birth. It should shock our consciences that the United States, one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, has one of the world's poorest records for maternal and infant health. Think of this: The United States is one of only 13 nations in the world where the maternal mortality rate is worse now than it was 25 years ago. Every year in America, nearly 1,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications and 70,000 others suffer near-fatal complications as a result of pregnancy. Now consider this: Women of color in the United States are three times more likely than White women to die as a result of their pregnancy. In Illinois, they are six times as likely to die. What makes these maternal deaths even more tragic is that an estimated 60 percent of them are preventable. The same is true of many infant deaths. Every year in America, more than 23,000 infants die due to factors that, in many cases, could be prevented. Among the 35 wealthiest nations in the world, the United States ranks 32nd in infant mortality. Again, the risks are unequal. Black babies are twice as likely to die in their first year of life as White babies. I have given a lot of thought and spoken with many experts about how we can bridge this racial divide. This week, I am reintroducing a bill with Senator Duckworth that I believe can decrease America's rates of maternal and infant sickness and deaths, especially among those of color. It is called the MOMMA Act. My companion in the House is Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Chicago. She and I have introduced this bill for the last two Congresses. It is time to make it law. First and foremost, the MOMMA Act would expand Medicaid coverage for new moms from 60 days to a full year postpartum. Making sure new moms have health coverage for a full year postpregnancy will go a long way toward catching, preventing, and treating potentially life-threatening conditions and problems. This is critical because in some States--like Illinois--nearly 60 percent of pregnancy-associated deaths occur between 43 and 364 days postpartum. Many States' Medicaid Programs, including Illinois's are strapped for cash, and the pandemic has increased their shortfalls. In addition, our bill would provide States with guidance and options to expand their Medicaid coverage to include doulas, who are often invaluable assets and advocates for pregnant women. Next, our bill would save lives by improving health care education and training to reduce the unconscious biases and discrimination that woman of color too often encounter from healthcare professionals. Lastly, our bill would improve hospital coordination and reporting on maternal health outcomes. Accurate reporting will enable us to chart our progress and make adjustments where and when they are needed. Among the women at greatest risk of pregnancy-related health complications are women who are incarcerated. Again, the risks for Black women are greater. To help these mothers and their babies, Senator Booker and I have introduced a separate bill. The Justice for Incarcerated Moms Act helps incarcerated pregnant women and new mothers with access to doulas and other health workers, as well as counseling, because a jail sentence should never be a death sentence for a mother or her newborn. As the poet Maya Angelou told us, we can't change the past. But when we know better, we must do better. We now know how we can do better to protect the lives of pregnant women and newborn babies. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these two important measures to give mothers and babies the healthy start in life that they deserve. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS884-2 | null | 2,365 |
formal | butterfly | null | homophobic | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Dr. Miguel Cardona's nomination to serve as Secretary of Education and to urge my colleagues to confirm him to this position. Dr. Cardona will bring a deep understanding of the needs of students and teachers, a firm grasp of our educational system, and a fresh perspective to the Department of Education. Dr. Cardona was the first in his immediate family to go to college. He is the father of two school-aged children, and he brings to this role decades of experience as an educator, having served as an elementary school teacher, principal, and assistant superintendent. Throughout his career, Dr. Cardona has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of students. He has fought to make sure college is accessible for all students. As the education commissioner for the State of Connecticut, he was on the frontlines helping his state tackle the complex issues facing their schools during the pandemic. In his opening statement before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Dr. Cardona reaffirmed his commitment to forging opportunity out of crisis. He also recognized the need to address educational inequities head-on and build a better future for the next generation. He has the track record to show he understands the value of education and knows how to get things done. Under Dr. Cardona's leadership, Connecticut became the first State in the Nation to ensure that all of its public school students had access to a laptop and a high-speed internet connection to engage in remote learning during the pandemic. At another point in Dr. Cardona's career, he led a task force to help figure out how to close the academic achievement gap among students in his State. The value of education is something that is personal to me. My grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines of Ely, and he never graduated from high school, but he knew the value of a quality education, saving money in a coffee can in the basement to send my dad to college. My dad graduated from Vermilion Community College and earned his graduate degree in journalism from the University of Minnesota. He went on to be a sports reporter and a newspaper columnist. My mom was a public school teacher who taught second grade until she was 70 years old. She loved teaching. Her favorite unit was the monarch butterfly unit, where we would dress up as a monarch butterfly, and she would teach the kids about metamorphosis. She would also wear that monarch butterfly costume to the supermarket. She was dressed as this big monarch butterfly with little antennas on her head and a sign that said ``to Mexico or bust'' because that is where the monarch would fly on its way from Canada through Minnesota and down. At the visitation on the night before my mom's funeral, I met a family. I had never met them before, but the mom was sobbing, and she had an older son who had a severe disability. The mom said, ``You know, your mom had my son here in school when he was in second grade. Now he was grown up, and he said he always loved that monarch butterfly unit. And after he graduated, he got a job bagging groceries, and your mom would continue to go to the grocery store and she would stand in line in her monarch butterfly outfit. For years she did this, and would always give him a big hug when she got to the end of the line.'' That was my mom, and she loved her kids, and she was a devoted teacher. I learned the value of education from my parents and grandparents, and I believe that it is a basic right that we have in this country that every child should have a right to education. I know that Dr. Miguel Cardona also believes in that right, and this is why I support his confirmation as Secretary of Education. I will also note that several of my Republican colleagues, including Senator Burr, ranking member on the HELP Committee, have come to the same conclusion. This past year has been like no other, filled with tremendous challenges for students, educators, and families. As a result of this pandemic, parents have had to teach their first graders how to use the mute button to go to school. The crisis has taken a toll on the mental health of students and educators. There is major work to do to make sure that all students can catch up on lost learning caused by gaps in access to technology and broadband during the pandemic. Thankfully, there is now light at the end of the tunnel with the development and distribution of vaccines that protect against the coronavirus and stand to save millions of lives. Our country now faces important decisions about how to safely and equitably return to in-person learning, and we need strong, thoughtful leadership to help guide these decisions and get our country back up and running. That means leadership we can trust to provide guidance that is driven by science and by public health experts. It also means leadership that will support the rights of all students to have a full and enriching educational experience. I believe that Dr. Cardona will be a Secretary who will fight for public education, not against it; a Secretary who takes seriously the Federal Government's role in making education policy, informed by the most rigorous science; perhaps most of all, a Secretary who fosters compromise, not conflict, in addressing our Nation's many educational challenges. As one of my mentors Senator Paul Wellstone put it, government should work to improve people's lives, and we have a lot of work to do with so many students and families in need. But I come to this Chamber today optimistic because our country has had a long and strong history of stepping up during challenging times like these. I look forward to partnering with Dr. Cardona to meet the needs of this moment and overcome the obstacles we face to support students, teachers, and schools as we work to recover from this pandemic and move forward. With that, I ask my colleagues to support the nomination: Miguel Cardona as Secretary of Education. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS887 | null | 2,366 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Dr. Miguel Cardona's nomination to serve as Secretary of Education and to urge my colleagues to confirm him to this position. Dr. Cardona will bring a deep understanding of the needs of students and teachers, a firm grasp of our educational system, and a fresh perspective to the Department of Education. Dr. Cardona was the first in his immediate family to go to college. He is the father of two school-aged children, and he brings to this role decades of experience as an educator, having served as an elementary school teacher, principal, and assistant superintendent. Throughout his career, Dr. Cardona has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of students. He has fought to make sure college is accessible for all students. As the education commissioner for the State of Connecticut, he was on the frontlines helping his state tackle the complex issues facing their schools during the pandemic. In his opening statement before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Dr. Cardona reaffirmed his commitment to forging opportunity out of crisis. He also recognized the need to address educational inequities head-on and build a better future for the next generation. He has the track record to show he understands the value of education and knows how to get things done. Under Dr. Cardona's leadership, Connecticut became the first State in the Nation to ensure that all of its public school students had access to a laptop and a high-speed internet connection to engage in remote learning during the pandemic. At another point in Dr. Cardona's career, he led a task force to help figure out how to close the academic achievement gap among students in his State. The value of education is something that is personal to me. My grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines of Ely, and he never graduated from high school, but he knew the value of a quality education, saving money in a coffee can in the basement to send my dad to college. My dad graduated from Vermilion Community College and earned his graduate degree in journalism from the University of Minnesota. He went on to be a sports reporter and a newspaper columnist. My mom was a public school teacher who taught second grade until she was 70 years old. She loved teaching. Her favorite unit was the monarch butterfly unit, where we would dress up as a monarch butterfly, and she would teach the kids about metamorphosis. She would also wear that monarch butterfly costume to the supermarket. She was dressed as this big monarch butterfly with little antennas on her head and a sign that said ``to Mexico or bust'' because that is where the monarch would fly on its way from Canada through Minnesota and down. At the visitation on the night before my mom's funeral, I met a family. I had never met them before, but the mom was sobbing, and she had an older son who had a severe disability. The mom said, ``You know, your mom had my son here in school when he was in second grade. Now he was grown up, and he said he always loved that monarch butterfly unit. And after he graduated, he got a job bagging groceries, and your mom would continue to go to the grocery store and she would stand in line in her monarch butterfly outfit. For years she did this, and would always give him a big hug when she got to the end of the line.'' That was my mom, and she loved her kids, and she was a devoted teacher. I learned the value of education from my parents and grandparents, and I believe that it is a basic right that we have in this country that every child should have a right to education. I know that Dr. Miguel Cardona also believes in that right, and this is why I support his confirmation as Secretary of Education. I will also note that several of my Republican colleagues, including Senator Burr, ranking member on the HELP Committee, have come to the same conclusion. This past year has been like no other, filled with tremendous challenges for students, educators, and families. As a result of this pandemic, parents have had to teach their first graders how to use the mute button to go to school. The crisis has taken a toll on the mental health of students and educators. There is major work to do to make sure that all students can catch up on lost learning caused by gaps in access to technology and broadband during the pandemic. Thankfully, there is now light at the end of the tunnel with the development and distribution of vaccines that protect against the coronavirus and stand to save millions of lives. Our country now faces important decisions about how to safely and equitably return to in-person learning, and we need strong, thoughtful leadership to help guide these decisions and get our country back up and running. That means leadership we can trust to provide guidance that is driven by science and by public health experts. It also means leadership that will support the rights of all students to have a full and enriching educational experience. I believe that Dr. Cardona will be a Secretary who will fight for public education, not against it; a Secretary who takes seriously the Federal Government's role in making education policy, informed by the most rigorous science; perhaps most of all, a Secretary who fosters compromise, not conflict, in addressing our Nation's many educational challenges. As one of my mentors Senator Paul Wellstone put it, government should work to improve people's lives, and we have a lot of work to do with so many students and families in need. But I come to this Chamber today optimistic because our country has had a long and strong history of stepping up during challenging times like these. I look forward to partnering with Dr. Cardona to meet the needs of this moment and overcome the obstacles we face to support students, teachers, and schools as we work to recover from this pandemic and move forward. With that, I ask my colleagues to support the nomination: Miguel Cardona as Secretary of Education. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS887 | null | 2,367 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the extraordinary service of my friend Representative Jane Margaret Lakes Harman, who will be leaving her position as president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars after nearly a decade of distinguished leadership. Born in New York City, Representative Harman grew up in Los Angeles and received her bachelor's degree magna cum laude from Smith College and her law degree from Harvard Law School. Like many young people who believe in the unmatched power of public service, Jane moved to Washington, DC, where she served as a staffer to Senator John Tunney and with the Senate Judiciary Committee. She would go on to serve her country in the Department of Defense and as President Carter's Secretary of the Cabinet. From 1993 until 2011, Representative Harman served the people of Southern California's 36th District. Throughout her tenure, Representative Harman fundamentally improved the national security of the United States through her work on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Committees. Not content with leading just from the halls of Congress, she sought to find the truth for herself. Her work in pursuit of the facts relevant to protecting our democracy and our allies took her to Guantanamo Bay, Syria, and North Korea. Her oversight and leadership on national security was especially critical throughout this time period, as the United States sought to understand and push back from threats both new and old, including foreign terrorism. While Representative Harman's contributions speak for themselves, her receipt of the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service, the CIA Seal Medal, the CIA Director's Award, and the National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal highlight an extraordinary career serving the American people. At the Wilson Center, Representative Harman continued her diligent work keeping our policymakers and the public informed on the ongoing security challenges the United States and her allies face. As we prepare and steel ourselves for the next era of security challenges, knowledge produced under her leadership and the relentless efforts of her colleague and staff will continue to be an invaluable resource. Like many extraordinary Americans, Representative Harman carried out this work while also caring for her family, including her four children, her four grandchildren, and her late husband Sidney, an enormous personality in his own right. After a lifetime of public service, from staffer to elected official to thought leader in the policy-making community, Representative Jane Harman has left an indelible mark that has deeply strengthened the safety of our Nation. I am forever grateful for her service, her friendship, and wish her all the best in her next adventures. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. GILLIBRAND | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS888 | null | 2,368 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 447. An act 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; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 546. An act to regulate monitoring of electronic communications between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1192. An act to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA''); to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS889-2 | null | 2,369 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 447. An act 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; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 546. An act to regulate monitoring of electronic communications between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1192. An act to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA''); to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS889-2 | null | 2,370 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | At 11:28 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 447. An act 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. H.R. 546. An act to regulate monitoring of electronic communications between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other purposes. H.R. 1192. An act to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA''). The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following resolution: H. Res. 155. Resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Ronald J. Wright, a Representative from the State of Texas. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS889 | null | 2,371 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | At 11:28 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 447. An act 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. H.R. 546. An act to regulate monitoring of electronic communications between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other purposes. H.R. 1192. An act to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA''). The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following resolution: H. Res. 155. Resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Ronald J. Wright, a Representative from the State of Texas. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS889 | null | 2,372 |
formal | public school | null | racist | At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 96, a bill to provide for the long-term improvement of public school facilities, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS892-2 | null | 2,373 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. TESTER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. King, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Markey, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Warner, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Warren, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 77 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States are where students come to be educated about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health supports; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 22 through February 26, 2021, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 22 through February 26, 2021, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS900-2 | null | 2,374 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. TESTER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. King, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Markey, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Warner, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Warren, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 77 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States are where students come to be educated about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health supports; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 22 through February 26, 2021, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 22 through February 26, 2021, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS900-2 | null | 2,375 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. TESTER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. King, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Markey, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Warner, Mr. Booker, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Warren, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 77 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States are where students come to be educated about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health supports; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 22 through February 26, 2021, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 22 through February 26, 2021, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS900-2 | null | 2,376 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Brown, Ms. Warren, Mr. Coons, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Padilla) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Con. Res. 6 Whereas the first ship carrying enslaved Africans to what is now known as the United States of America arrived in 1619; Whereas that event 400 years ago was significant not only because it ushered in the institution of chattel slavery of African Americans, but also because it facilitated the systematic oppression of all people of color that has been a devastating and insufficiently understood and acknowledged aspect of our Nation's history over those past 400 years, and that has left a legacy of that oppression that haunts our Nation to this day; Whereas the institution of chattel slavery in the United States subjugated African Americans for nearly 250 years, fractured our Nation, and made a mockery of its founding principle that ``all men are created equal''; Whereas the signing of the Constitution of the United States failed to end slavery and oppressions against African Americans and other people of color, thus embedding in society the belief in the myth of a hierarchy of human value based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color and facial features, and resulting in purposeful and persistent racial inequities in education, health care, employment, Social Security and veteran benefits, land ownership, financial assistance, food security, wages, voting rights, and the justice system; Whereas that oppression denied opportunity and mobility to African Americans and other people of color within the United States, resulting in stolen labor worth billions of dollars while ultimately forestalling landmark contributions that African Americans and other people of color would make in science, arts, commerce, and public service; Whereas Reconstruction represented a significant but constrained moment of advances for Black rights as epitomized by the Freedman's Bureau, which negotiated labor contracts for ex-enslaved people but failed to secure their own land for them; Whereas the brutal overthrow of Reconstruction failed all individuals in the United States by failing to ensure the safety and security of African Americans and by emboldening States and municipalities in both the North and South to enact numerous laws and policies to stymie the socioeconomic mobility and political voice of freed Blacks, thus maintaining their subservience to Whites; Whereas Reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and other efforts to redress the grievances of marginalized people were sabotaged, both intentionally and unintentionally, by those in power, thus rendering the accomplishments of those efforts transitory and unsustainable, and further embedding the racial hierarchy in society; Whereas examples of government actions directed against populations of color (referred to in this resolution as ``discriminatory government actions'') include-- (1) the creation of the Federal Housing Administration, which adopted specific policies designed to incentivize residential segregation; (2) the enactment of legislation creating the Social Security program, for which most African Americans were purposely rendered ineligible during its first 2 decades; (3) the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (commonly known as the ``G.I. Bill of Rights''; 58 Stat. 284, chapter 268), which left administration of its programs to the States, thus enabling blatant discrimination against African American veterans; (4) the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which allowed labor unions to discriminate based on race; (5) subprime lending aimed purposefully at families of color; (6) disenfranchisement of Native Americans, who, until 1924, were denied citizenship on land Native Americans had occupied for millennia; (7) Federal Indian Boarding School policy during the 19th and 20th centuries, the purpose of which was to ``civilize'' Native children through methods intended to eradicate Native cultures, traditions, and languages; (8) land policies toward Indian Tribes, such as the allotment policy, which caused the loss of over 90,000,000 acres of Tribal lands, even though two-thirds of that acreage was guaranteed to Indian Tribes by treaties and other Federal laws, and similar unjustified land grabs from Indian Tribes that occurred regionally throughout the late 1800s and into the termination era in the 1950s and 1960s; (9) the involuntary removal of Mexicans and United States citizens of Mexican descent through large-scale discriminatory deportation programs in the 1930s and 1950s; (10) the United States annexation of Puerto Rico, which made Puerto Ricans citizens of the United States without affording them voting rights; (11) racial discrimination against Latino Americans, which has forced Latino Americans to fight continuously for equal access to employment, housing, health care, financial services, and education; (12) the Act entitled ``An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese'', approved May 6, 1892 (commonly known as the ``Chinese Exclusion Act''; 22 Stat. 58, chapter 126), which effectively halted immigration from China and barred Chinese immigrants from becoming citizens of the United States, and which was the first instance of xenophobic legislation signed into law specifically targeting a specific group of people based on ethnicity; (13) the treatment of Japanese Americans, despite no evidence of disloyalty, as suspect and traitorous in the very country they helped to build, leading most notably to the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans beginning in 1942; (14) the conspiracy to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and annex the land of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii; and (15) the United States history of colonialism in the Pacific, which has resulted in economic, health, and educational disparities among other inequities, for people in United States territories, as well as independent nations with which the United States has treaty obligations; Whereas those discriminatory government actions, among other government policies that have had racially disparate impacts, have disproportionately barred African Americans and other people of color from building wealth, thus limiting potential capital and exacerbating the racial wealth gap; Whereas research has shown that the persistent racial wealth gap has had a significant negative impact on other racial disparities, such as the achievement gap, disparities in school dropout rates, income gaps, disparities in home ownership rates, health outcome disparities, and disparities in incarceration rates; Whereas United States civic leaders and foundations have spearheaded critical efforts to advance racial healing, understanding, and transformation within the United States, recognizing that it is in our collective national interest to urgently address the unhealed, entrenched divisions that will severely undermine our democracy if they are allowed to continue to exist; Whereas many of the most far-reaching victories for racial healing in the United States have been greatly enhanced by the involvement, support, and dedication of individuals from any and all racial groups; Whereas at the same time, much of the progress toward racial healing and racial equity in the United States has been limited or reversed by our failure to address the root cause of racism, the belief in the myth of a hierarchy of human value based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color and facial features; Whereas the United States institution of slavery, as well as other examples enumerated in this resolution, represent intentional and blatant violations of the most basic right of every individual in the United States to a free and decent life; Whereas the consequences of oppression against people of color have cascaded for centuries, across generations, beyond the era of active enslavement, imperiling for descendants of slaves and other targets of oppression what should have otherwise been the right of every individual in the United States to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Whereas more than 40 countries have reckoned with historical injustice and its aftermath through forming Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to move toward restorative justice and to return dignity to their citizens; Whereas for 3 decades there has been a growing movement inside and outside Congress to have the Federal Government develop material remedies for the institution of slavery, including through a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans described in H.R. 40, 117th Congress, as introduced on January 4, 2021, and S. 40, 117th Congress, as introduced on January 25, 2021; Whereas the formation of a United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation does not supplant the formation of a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, but rather complements that effort; and Whereas contemporary social science, medical science, and the rapidly expanding use of artificial intelligence and social media reveal the costs and potential threats to our democracy if we continue to allow unhealed, entrenched divisions to be ignored and exploited: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) affirms, on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first slave ship to the United States, that the Nation owes a long-overdue debt of remembrance to not only those who lived through the egregious injustices enumerated in this resolution, but also to their descendants; and (2) urges the establishment of a United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation to properly acknowledge, memorialize, and be a catalyst for progress toward-- (A) jettisoning the belief in a hierarchy of human value; (B) embracing our common humanity; and (C) permanently eliminating persistent racial inequities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS901 | null | 2,377 |
formal | disloyalty | null | antisemitic | Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Brown, Ms. Warren, Mr. Coons, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Padilla) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Con. Res. 6 Whereas the first ship carrying enslaved Africans to what is now known as the United States of America arrived in 1619; Whereas that event 400 years ago was significant not only because it ushered in the institution of chattel slavery of African Americans, but also because it facilitated the systematic oppression of all people of color that has been a devastating and insufficiently understood and acknowledged aspect of our Nation's history over those past 400 years, and that has left a legacy of that oppression that haunts our Nation to this day; Whereas the institution of chattel slavery in the United States subjugated African Americans for nearly 250 years, fractured our Nation, and made a mockery of its founding principle that ``all men are created equal''; Whereas the signing of the Constitution of the United States failed to end slavery and oppressions against African Americans and other people of color, thus embedding in society the belief in the myth of a hierarchy of human value based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color and facial features, and resulting in purposeful and persistent racial inequities in education, health care, employment, Social Security and veteran benefits, land ownership, financial assistance, food security, wages, voting rights, and the justice system; Whereas that oppression denied opportunity and mobility to African Americans and other people of color within the United States, resulting in stolen labor worth billions of dollars while ultimately forestalling landmark contributions that African Americans and other people of color would make in science, arts, commerce, and public service; Whereas Reconstruction represented a significant but constrained moment of advances for Black rights as epitomized by the Freedman's Bureau, which negotiated labor contracts for ex-enslaved people but failed to secure their own land for them; Whereas the brutal overthrow of Reconstruction failed all individuals in the United States by failing to ensure the safety and security of African Americans and by emboldening States and municipalities in both the North and South to enact numerous laws and policies to stymie the socioeconomic mobility and political voice of freed Blacks, thus maintaining their subservience to Whites; Whereas Reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and other efforts to redress the grievances of marginalized people were sabotaged, both intentionally and unintentionally, by those in power, thus rendering the accomplishments of those efforts transitory and unsustainable, and further embedding the racial hierarchy in society; Whereas examples of government actions directed against populations of color (referred to in this resolution as ``discriminatory government actions'') include-- (1) the creation of the Federal Housing Administration, which adopted specific policies designed to incentivize residential segregation; (2) the enactment of legislation creating the Social Security program, for which most African Americans were purposely rendered ineligible during its first 2 decades; (3) the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (commonly known as the ``G.I. Bill of Rights''; 58 Stat. 284, chapter 268), which left administration of its programs to the States, thus enabling blatant discrimination against African American veterans; (4) the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which allowed labor unions to discriminate based on race; (5) subprime lending aimed purposefully at families of color; (6) disenfranchisement of Native Americans, who, until 1924, were denied citizenship on land Native Americans had occupied for millennia; (7) Federal Indian Boarding School policy during the 19th and 20th centuries, the purpose of which was to ``civilize'' Native children through methods intended to eradicate Native cultures, traditions, and languages; (8) land policies toward Indian Tribes, such as the allotment policy, which caused the loss of over 90,000,000 acres of Tribal lands, even though two-thirds of that acreage was guaranteed to Indian Tribes by treaties and other Federal laws, and similar unjustified land grabs from Indian Tribes that occurred regionally throughout the late 1800s and into the termination era in the 1950s and 1960s; (9) the involuntary removal of Mexicans and United States citizens of Mexican descent through large-scale discriminatory deportation programs in the 1930s and 1950s; (10) the United States annexation of Puerto Rico, which made Puerto Ricans citizens of the United States without affording them voting rights; (11) racial discrimination against Latino Americans, which has forced Latino Americans to fight continuously for equal access to employment, housing, health care, financial services, and education; (12) the Act entitled ``An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese'', approved May 6, 1892 (commonly known as the ``Chinese Exclusion Act''; 22 Stat. 58, chapter 126), which effectively halted immigration from China and barred Chinese immigrants from becoming citizens of the United States, and which was the first instance of xenophobic legislation signed into law specifically targeting a specific group of people based on ethnicity; (13) the treatment of Japanese Americans, despite no evidence of disloyalty, as suspect and traitorous in the very country they helped to build, leading most notably to the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans beginning in 1942; (14) the conspiracy to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and annex the land of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii; and (15) the United States history of colonialism in the Pacific, which has resulted in economic, health, and educational disparities among other inequities, for people in United States territories, as well as independent nations with which the United States has treaty obligations; Whereas those discriminatory government actions, among other government policies that have had racially disparate impacts, have disproportionately barred African Americans and other people of color from building wealth, thus limiting potential capital and exacerbating the racial wealth gap; Whereas research has shown that the persistent racial wealth gap has had a significant negative impact on other racial disparities, such as the achievement gap, disparities in school dropout rates, income gaps, disparities in home ownership rates, health outcome disparities, and disparities in incarceration rates; Whereas United States civic leaders and foundations have spearheaded critical efforts to advance racial healing, understanding, and transformation within the United States, recognizing that it is in our collective national interest to urgently address the unhealed, entrenched divisions that will severely undermine our democracy if they are allowed to continue to exist; Whereas many of the most far-reaching victories for racial healing in the United States have been greatly enhanced by the involvement, support, and dedication of individuals from any and all racial groups; Whereas at the same time, much of the progress toward racial healing and racial equity in the United States has been limited or reversed by our failure to address the root cause of racism, the belief in the myth of a hierarchy of human value based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color and facial features; Whereas the United States institution of slavery, as well as other examples enumerated in this resolution, represent intentional and blatant violations of the most basic right of every individual in the United States to a free and decent life; Whereas the consequences of oppression against people of color have cascaded for centuries, across generations, beyond the era of active enslavement, imperiling for descendants of slaves and other targets of oppression what should have otherwise been the right of every individual in the United States to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Whereas more than 40 countries have reckoned with historical injustice and its aftermath through forming Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to move toward restorative justice and to return dignity to their citizens; Whereas for 3 decades there has been a growing movement inside and outside Congress to have the Federal Government develop material remedies for the institution of slavery, including through a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans described in H.R. 40, 117th Congress, as introduced on January 4, 2021, and S. 40, 117th Congress, as introduced on January 25, 2021; Whereas the formation of a United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation does not supplant the formation of a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, but rather complements that effort; and Whereas contemporary social science, medical science, and the rapidly expanding use of artificial intelligence and social media reveal the costs and potential threats to our democracy if we continue to allow unhealed, entrenched divisions to be ignored and exploited: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) affirms, on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first slave ship to the United States, that the Nation owes a long-overdue debt of remembrance to not only those who lived through the egregious injustices enumerated in this resolution, but also to their descendants; and (2) urges the establishment of a United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation to properly acknowledge, memorialize, and be a catalyst for progress toward-- (A) jettisoning the belief in a hierarchy of human value; (B) embracing our common humanity; and (C) permanently eliminating persistent racial inequities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS901 | null | 2,378 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Brown, Ms. Warren, Mr. Coons, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Padilla) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Con. Res. 6 Whereas the first ship carrying enslaved Africans to what is now known as the United States of America arrived in 1619; Whereas that event 400 years ago was significant not only because it ushered in the institution of chattel slavery of African Americans, but also because it facilitated the systematic oppression of all people of color that has been a devastating and insufficiently understood and acknowledged aspect of our Nation's history over those past 400 years, and that has left a legacy of that oppression that haunts our Nation to this day; Whereas the institution of chattel slavery in the United States subjugated African Americans for nearly 250 years, fractured our Nation, and made a mockery of its founding principle that ``all men are created equal''; Whereas the signing of the Constitution of the United States failed to end slavery and oppressions against African Americans and other people of color, thus embedding in society the belief in the myth of a hierarchy of human value based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color and facial features, and resulting in purposeful and persistent racial inequities in education, health care, employment, Social Security and veteran benefits, land ownership, financial assistance, food security, wages, voting rights, and the justice system; Whereas that oppression denied opportunity and mobility to African Americans and other people of color within the United States, resulting in stolen labor worth billions of dollars while ultimately forestalling landmark contributions that African Americans and other people of color would make in science, arts, commerce, and public service; Whereas Reconstruction represented a significant but constrained moment of advances for Black rights as epitomized by the Freedman's Bureau, which negotiated labor contracts for ex-enslaved people but failed to secure their own land for them; Whereas the brutal overthrow of Reconstruction failed all individuals in the United States by failing to ensure the safety and security of African Americans and by emboldening States and municipalities in both the North and South to enact numerous laws and policies to stymie the socioeconomic mobility and political voice of freed Blacks, thus maintaining their subservience to Whites; Whereas Reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and other efforts to redress the grievances of marginalized people were sabotaged, both intentionally and unintentionally, by those in power, thus rendering the accomplishments of those efforts transitory and unsustainable, and further embedding the racial hierarchy in society; Whereas examples of government actions directed against populations of color (referred to in this resolution as ``discriminatory government actions'') include-- (1) the creation of the Federal Housing Administration, which adopted specific policies designed to incentivize residential segregation; (2) the enactment of legislation creating the Social Security program, for which most African Americans were purposely rendered ineligible during its first 2 decades; (3) the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (commonly known as the ``G.I. Bill of Rights''; 58 Stat. 284, chapter 268), which left administration of its programs to the States, thus enabling blatant discrimination against African American veterans; (4) the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which allowed labor unions to discriminate based on race; (5) subprime lending aimed purposefully at families of color; (6) disenfranchisement of Native Americans, who, until 1924, were denied citizenship on land Native Americans had occupied for millennia; (7) Federal Indian Boarding School policy during the 19th and 20th centuries, the purpose of which was to ``civilize'' Native children through methods intended to eradicate Native cultures, traditions, and languages; (8) land policies toward Indian Tribes, such as the allotment policy, which caused the loss of over 90,000,000 acres of Tribal lands, even though two-thirds of that acreage was guaranteed to Indian Tribes by treaties and other Federal laws, and similar unjustified land grabs from Indian Tribes that occurred regionally throughout the late 1800s and into the termination era in the 1950s and 1960s; (9) the involuntary removal of Mexicans and United States citizens of Mexican descent through large-scale discriminatory deportation programs in the 1930s and 1950s; (10) the United States annexation of Puerto Rico, which made Puerto Ricans citizens of the United States without affording them voting rights; (11) racial discrimination against Latino Americans, which has forced Latino Americans to fight continuously for equal access to employment, housing, health care, financial services, and education; (12) the Act entitled ``An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese'', approved May 6, 1892 (commonly known as the ``Chinese Exclusion Act''; 22 Stat. 58, chapter 126), which effectively halted immigration from China and barred Chinese immigrants from becoming citizens of the United States, and which was the first instance of xenophobic legislation signed into law specifically targeting a specific group of people based on ethnicity; (13) the treatment of Japanese Americans, despite no evidence of disloyalty, as suspect and traitorous in the very country they helped to build, leading most notably to the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans beginning in 1942; (14) the conspiracy to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii and annex the land of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii; and (15) the United States history of colonialism in the Pacific, which has resulted in economic, health, and educational disparities among other inequities, for people in United States territories, as well as independent nations with which the United States has treaty obligations; Whereas those discriminatory government actions, among other government policies that have had racially disparate impacts, have disproportionately barred African Americans and other people of color from building wealth, thus limiting potential capital and exacerbating the racial wealth gap; Whereas research has shown that the persistent racial wealth gap has had a significant negative impact on other racial disparities, such as the achievement gap, disparities in school dropout rates, income gaps, disparities in home ownership rates, health outcome disparities, and disparities in incarceration rates; Whereas United States civic leaders and foundations have spearheaded critical efforts to advance racial healing, understanding, and transformation within the United States, recognizing that it is in our collective national interest to urgently address the unhealed, entrenched divisions that will severely undermine our democracy if they are allowed to continue to exist; Whereas many of the most far-reaching victories for racial healing in the United States have been greatly enhanced by the involvement, support, and dedication of individuals from any and all racial groups; Whereas at the same time, much of the progress toward racial healing and racial equity in the United States has been limited or reversed by our failure to address the root cause of racism, the belief in the myth of a hierarchy of human value based on superficial physical characteristics such as skin color and facial features; Whereas the United States institution of slavery, as well as other examples enumerated in this resolution, represent intentional and blatant violations of the most basic right of every individual in the United States to a free and decent life; Whereas the consequences of oppression against people of color have cascaded for centuries, across generations, beyond the era of active enslavement, imperiling for descendants of slaves and other targets of oppression what should have otherwise been the right of every individual in the United States to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; Whereas more than 40 countries have reckoned with historical injustice and its aftermath through forming Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to move toward restorative justice and to return dignity to their citizens; Whereas for 3 decades there has been a growing movement inside and outside Congress to have the Federal Government develop material remedies for the institution of slavery, including through a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans described in H.R. 40, 117th Congress, as introduced on January 4, 2021, and S. 40, 117th Congress, as introduced on January 25, 2021; Whereas the formation of a United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation does not supplant the formation of a Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, but rather complements that effort; and Whereas contemporary social science, medical science, and the rapidly expanding use of artificial intelligence and social media reveal the costs and potential threats to our democracy if we continue to allow unhealed, entrenched divisions to be ignored and exploited: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) affirms, on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first slave ship to the United States, that the Nation owes a long-overdue debt of remembrance to not only those who lived through the egregious injustices enumerated in this resolution, but also to their descendants; and (2) urges the establishment of a United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation to properly acknowledge, memorialize, and be a catalyst for progress toward-- (A) jettisoning the belief in a hierarchy of human value; (B) embracing our common humanity; and (C) permanently eliminating persistent racial inequities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS901 | null | 2,379 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, February 25, 2021 Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Section 102(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) requires the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) to biennially submit a report containing recommendations regarding Federal workplace rights, safety and health, and public access laws and regulations that should be made applicable to Congress and its agencies. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the rights afforded by the CAA to legislative branch employees and visitors to Capitol Hill and district and state offices remain equivalent to those in the private sector and the executive branch of the Federal Government. As such, these recommendations support the intent of Congress to keep pace with advances in workplace rights and public access laws. Accompanying this letter is a copy of the Board's Section 102(b) Report for the 117th Congress. This report was submitted electronically to President Pro Tempore Grassley and Speaker Pelosi on December 31, 2020, which was the filing date required by statute. We welcome discussion on these issues and urge that Congress act on these important recommendations. As required by the CAA, we request that this publication be printed in the Congressional Record and referred to the committees of the U.S. Senate with jurisdiction. Sincerely, Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive Director, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Attachment. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-02-25-pt1-PgS902-4 | null | 2,380 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: To You, who is able to do more than we can ask or imagine, we come asking You to do the unimaginable in the face of the devastation that the COVID pandemic has wrought on our country. Holy God, enable us to wield carefully the power You have entrusted to us. As we work to provide relief to the unemployed and to aid small businesses struggling to survive, help us to be singular in our purpose, not distracted by special interests. May we be wise in how we use this opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Americans and responsible to the scarce and precious resources entrusted to us. On this day of Purim in the Jewish tradition, maybe it will take a miracle for us to come to consensus. But at such a time as this, may we risk our partisan postures to stand together to address the needs and welfare of our compatriots. It is in the strength of Your name we pray. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-26-pt1-PgH735-3 | null | 2,381 |
formal | special interests | null | antisemitic | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: To You, who is able to do more than we can ask or imagine, we come asking You to do the unimaginable in the face of the devastation that the COVID pandemic has wrought on our country. Holy God, enable us to wield carefully the power You have entrusted to us. As we work to provide relief to the unemployed and to aid small businesses struggling to survive, help us to be singular in our purpose, not distracted by special interests. May we be wise in how we use this opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Americans and responsible to the scarce and precious resources entrusted to us. On this day of Purim in the Jewish tradition, maybe it will take a miracle for us to come to consensus. But at such a time as this, may we risk our partisan postures to stand together to address the needs and welfare of our compatriots. It is in the strength of Your name we pray. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-26-pt1-PgH735-3 | null | 2,382 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: To You, who is able to do more than we can ask or imagine, we come asking You to do the unimaginable in the face of the devastation that the COVID pandemic has wrought on our country. Holy God, enable us to wield carefully the power You have entrusted to us. As we work to provide relief to the unemployed and to aid small businesses struggling to survive, help us to be singular in our purpose, not distracted by special interests. May we be wise in how we use this opportunity to make a difference in the lives of Americans and responsible to the scarce and precious resources entrusted to us. On this day of Purim in the Jewish tradition, maybe it will take a miracle for us to come to consensus. But at such a time as this, may we risk our partisan postures to stand together to address the needs and welfare of our compatriots. It is in the strength of Your name we pray. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-02-26-pt1-PgH735-3 | null | 2,383 |
formal | election integrity | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on another matter entirely, voting rights, the story of American democracy is a long and messy one, full of contradictions and halting progress. It was a century and a half after our founding before women got the right to vote, another half century before African Americans could enjoy the full rights of citizenship. It took mighty movements and decades of fraught political conflicts to achieve even those basic dignities and establish the United States as a full democracy worthy of the title. But any American who thinks that today, in 2021, that fight is over--that the fight for voting rights is over--is sorely and, unfortunately, sadly mistaken. In the wake of the most recent election, an election that the former President has repeatedly lied about and claimed was stolen, more than 253 bills in 43 States have been introduced to tighten voting rules under the pernicious, nasty guise of election integrity. In Iowa, the State legislature voted to cut early voting by 9 days. Polls will close an hour earlier. And they voted to tighten the rules on absentee voting, which so many--the elderly, the disabled, the frail--depend on. In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers have proposed limiting ballot drop boxes to one per municipality--a municipality of hundreds of thousands, and a tiny one gets the small one. I wonder why. I wonder why. In Arizona, one Republican legislator wants to pass a law allowing the State legislators--listen to this--to ignore the results of the Presidential election and determine their own slate of electors. One legislator in Arizona wants to pass a law allowing State legislators to ignore the results of the Presidential election and determine their own slate of electors. That doesn't sound like democracy. That sounds like dictatorship. The most reprehensible of all efforts might be found in Georgia, where Republicans have introduced a bill to eliminate all early voting on Sundays, a day when Black churches sponsor get-out-the-vote drives known as ``souls to the polls.'' We have, supposedly--supposedly--come a long way since African Americans in the South were forced to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to be allowed to vote. But it is very difficult to look at the specific laws proposed by Republican legislatures around the country, designed to limit voter participation in heavily African-American and Hispanic areas, to lower turnout and frustrate election administration in urban districts and near college campuses, to gerrymander districts to limit minority representation ``with almost surgical precision,'' to specifically target and thwart Black churches from organizing voting drives--it is difficult, very difficult not to see the tentacles of America's generations-old caste system, typically associated with slavery and Jim Crow, stretching into the 21st century and poisoning the wellspring of any true democracy--free and fair elections. We see a lot of despicable things these days, but nothing that seems to be more despicable than this. When you lose an election in a democratic society, you update your party platform and appeal to more voters. You don't change the rules to make it harder for your opponents to vote, especially not African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other voters who havebeen historically disenfranchised. That response is toxic to democracy and, indeed, is the very opposite of democracy. Make no mistake, these despicable, discriminatory, anti-democratic proposals are on the move in State legislatures throughout America. They must be opposed by every American--Democrat, Republican, Independent; liberal, conservative, moderate--who cherishes our democracy. This is just incredible what they are trying to do--incredible. We must do everything we can to stop it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS908-2 | null | 2,384 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on another matter entirely, voting rights, the story of American democracy is a long and messy one, full of contradictions and halting progress. It was a century and a half after our founding before women got the right to vote, another half century before African Americans could enjoy the full rights of citizenship. It took mighty movements and decades of fraught political conflicts to achieve even those basic dignities and establish the United States as a full democracy worthy of the title. But any American who thinks that today, in 2021, that fight is over--that the fight for voting rights is over--is sorely and, unfortunately, sadly mistaken. In the wake of the most recent election, an election that the former President has repeatedly lied about and claimed was stolen, more than 253 bills in 43 States have been introduced to tighten voting rules under the pernicious, nasty guise of election integrity. In Iowa, the State legislature voted to cut early voting by 9 days. Polls will close an hour earlier. And they voted to tighten the rules on absentee voting, which so many--the elderly, the disabled, the frail--depend on. In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers have proposed limiting ballot drop boxes to one per municipality--a municipality of hundreds of thousands, and a tiny one gets the small one. I wonder why. I wonder why. In Arizona, one Republican legislator wants to pass a law allowing the State legislators--listen to this--to ignore the results of the Presidential election and determine their own slate of electors. One legislator in Arizona wants to pass a law allowing State legislators to ignore the results of the Presidential election and determine their own slate of electors. That doesn't sound like democracy. That sounds like dictatorship. The most reprehensible of all efforts might be found in Georgia, where Republicans have introduced a bill to eliminate all early voting on Sundays, a day when Black churches sponsor get-out-the-vote drives known as ``souls to the polls.'' We have, supposedly--supposedly--come a long way since African Americans in the South were forced to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to be allowed to vote. But it is very difficult to look at the specific laws proposed by Republican legislatures around the country, designed to limit voter participation in heavily African-American and Hispanic areas, to lower turnout and frustrate election administration in urban districts and near college campuses, to gerrymander districts to limit minority representation ``with almost surgical precision,'' to specifically target and thwart Black churches from organizing voting drives--it is difficult, very difficult not to see the tentacles of America's generations-old caste system, typically associated with slavery and Jim Crow, stretching into the 21st century and poisoning the wellspring of any true democracy--free and fair elections. We see a lot of despicable things these days, but nothing that seems to be more despicable than this. When you lose an election in a democratic society, you update your party platform and appeal to more voters. You don't change the rules to make it harder for your opponents to vote, especially not African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other voters who havebeen historically disenfranchised. That response is toxic to democracy and, indeed, is the very opposite of democracy. Make no mistake, these despicable, discriminatory, anti-democratic proposals are on the move in State legislatures throughout America. They must be opposed by every American--Democrat, Republican, Independent; liberal, conservative, moderate--who cherishes our democracy. This is just incredible what they are trying to do--incredible. We must do everything we can to stop it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS908-2 | null | 2,385 |
formal | poisoning the well | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on another matter entirely, voting rights, the story of American democracy is a long and messy one, full of contradictions and halting progress. It was a century and a half after our founding before women got the right to vote, another half century before African Americans could enjoy the full rights of citizenship. It took mighty movements and decades of fraught political conflicts to achieve even those basic dignities and establish the United States as a full democracy worthy of the title. But any American who thinks that today, in 2021, that fight is over--that the fight for voting rights is over--is sorely and, unfortunately, sadly mistaken. In the wake of the most recent election, an election that the former President has repeatedly lied about and claimed was stolen, more than 253 bills in 43 States have been introduced to tighten voting rules under the pernicious, nasty guise of election integrity. In Iowa, the State legislature voted to cut early voting by 9 days. Polls will close an hour earlier. And they voted to tighten the rules on absentee voting, which so many--the elderly, the disabled, the frail--depend on. In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers have proposed limiting ballot drop boxes to one per municipality--a municipality of hundreds of thousands, and a tiny one gets the small one. I wonder why. I wonder why. In Arizona, one Republican legislator wants to pass a law allowing the State legislators--listen to this--to ignore the results of the Presidential election and determine their own slate of electors. One legislator in Arizona wants to pass a law allowing State legislators to ignore the results of the Presidential election and determine their own slate of electors. That doesn't sound like democracy. That sounds like dictatorship. The most reprehensible of all efforts might be found in Georgia, where Republicans have introduced a bill to eliminate all early voting on Sundays, a day when Black churches sponsor get-out-the-vote drives known as ``souls to the polls.'' We have, supposedly--supposedly--come a long way since African Americans in the South were forced to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to be allowed to vote. But it is very difficult to look at the specific laws proposed by Republican legislatures around the country, designed to limit voter participation in heavily African-American and Hispanic areas, to lower turnout and frustrate election administration in urban districts and near college campuses, to gerrymander districts to limit minority representation ``with almost surgical precision,'' to specifically target and thwart Black churches from organizing voting drives--it is difficult, very difficult not to see the tentacles of America's generations-old caste system, typically associated with slavery and Jim Crow, stretching into the 21st century and poisoning the wellspring of any true democracy--free and fair elections. We see a lot of despicable things these days, but nothing that seems to be more despicable than this. When you lose an election in a democratic society, you update your party platform and appeal to more voters. You don't change the rules to make it harder for your opponents to vote, especially not African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other voters who havebeen historically disenfranchised. That response is toxic to democracy and, indeed, is the very opposite of democracy. Make no mistake, these despicable, discriminatory, anti-democratic proposals are on the move in State legislatures throughout America. They must be opposed by every American--Democrat, Republican, Independent; liberal, conservative, moderate--who cherishes our democracy. This is just incredible what they are trying to do--incredible. We must do everything we can to stop it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS908-2 | null | 2,386 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. On another matter, at about 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, House Democrats rammed through the bonanza of partisan spending they are calling a pandemic rescue package. Only Democrats voted for it. Both Republicans and Democrats voted against it. Last year, under a Republican Senate and a Republican administration, Congress passed five historic coronavirus relief bills--five of them. Not one of the five bills got fewer than 90 votes in the Senate or less than about 80 percent over in the House. Ah, but alas, this time Democrats have chosen to go a completely partisan route. Even famous liberal economists and liberal editorial boards are saying their half-baked plan is poorly targeted to what families needed. We have gone from passing public relief with 80 percent and 90 percent bipartisan supermajorities last year to the Speaker of the House ramming this through with just 50.7 percent of the House on Friday night. The bill contains all kinds of liberal spending on pet projects with no relationship whatsoever to pandemic relief. Remember, we are almost to the 1-year anniversary of a leading House Democrat admitting they see this whole crisis as ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' So, sorry to all the American families who have just been hoping to get their jobs back, their schools back, and their lives back. Democrats are more interested in some restructuring. That is why only 1 percent--1 percent--of this huge package goes directly to vaccinations--1 percent for vaccinations. That is why it proposes another 12-digit sum of Federal funding for K-12 schools, even though science shows those schools can be made safe right now. About 95 percent of that funding won't even go out this fiscal year. Ninety-five percent of the school funding in this bill won't go out this year. And this is an emergency package? That is why they are pushing economic policies that would drag down our recovery--like the House's vote for a one-size-fits-all minimum wage policy that would kill 1.4 million jobs or continuing to pay laid-off workers a premium to stay home that would extend well into a recovery where job growth and rehiring will be pivotal. Whenever their long-term liberal dreams came into conflict with what Americans actually need right now, Democrats decided their ideology should win out. Well, it doesn't have to be this way. We could have built more practical policies to help the American people move forward. Some Senate Republicans literally went down to the White House and proposed that both sides work together, like we did five times last year. The administration declined. So this is where we are: a bad process, a bad bill, and a missed opportunity to do right by working families. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS909-4 | null | 2,387 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the Senate floor for the first time as a U.S. Senator from the great State of Alabama. I want to share some thoughts on how we can work together as a team to improve the lives of our constituents and to provide more opportunity for the next generation of Americans, but before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank the people of Alabama. For the last 2 years, I have traveled the State, from Mobile to Muscle Shoals, from the Wiregrass to Lake Guntersville, and many places in between. I talked to folks from all walks of life. Mostly, I listened, which is something we can all do better. I listened to people's hopes, and I listened to their concerns. I heard what they thought was going right in our country and State and what they thought was going wrong, and even after being a football coach my entire career, working day and night, running for the Senate was still the hardest thing I have ever done, but I enjoyed every minute. In the end, I asked the people of Alabama to trust me with the responsibility of representing them here in Washington, and they did. It is humbling. It is an opportunity to serve my country that I respect, cherish, and will always honor. My staff and I will work hard every day to live up to that trust. Like the Presiding Officer, my constituents sent me to Washington to represent them and to help make their lives better. I recognize we all have our differences, but we are all on the same team. We have got an offense and a defense, but at the end of the day, we are still on the same team. One of the things we can do together as a team is to create more opportunity for more people. In my view, that starts with education. I have been an educator, a coach, and a mentor to young people for 40 years. I recruited 18- to 19-year-olds from all over the country and all walks of life. I saw how they lived. I was a father figure to hundreds of young men who had one or no parents. I coached young people from all backgrounds--rich, poor, and everybody in between. I mentored young people of all races, religions, and economic backgrounds. As someone who has had a chance to travel across the country and this globe for my career, I have seen how other people live. One thing I have learned is that education is the key to freedom--the key to freedom--the freedom to live the life you want. I have seen firsthand how education can give you a leg up and a way out. It is a way to achieve the American dream. When we empower our young people with a quality education, we give them the gift of an opportunity, the greatest gift our country can give our citizens. And what I found out as a coach is that, when people are given an opportunity to better themselves, they usually take it. I think I can safely say I have been in more public schools than any Senator ever. Too often, I have found that we are failing our young people by not providing the quality education they deserve. It is not about money; it is about people; it is about what we value and what we teach. Improving education in this country should be one of the, if not the top, priorities we have. That is why I am proud to be a new member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. On the HELP Committee, we need to work together as a team to do three things. First, we need to recognize that parents and teachers know how to best educate our young people in their communities because we are all different. The Federal Government does not need to tell parents in Alabama how to teach their kids. We don't need a one-size-fits-all education curriculum. What works in San Francisco will not necessarily work in Scottsboro, AL. Second, we should recognize that education takes many forms. Not every student in America needs to go to a 4-year college or university. To ensure our country remains competitive in the 21st century, we need to promote STEM education to those students who have an interest in math and science, but to remain strong, this country also needs welders, plumbers, nurses, equipment operators, electricians, and craftsmen. These are jobs that have excellent pay and great futures. If the Democrats want to pass a massive infrastructure bill, they need to first ask: Who is going to build it? That is why I will be looking for any opportunity to support career technical programs that prepare a skilled workforce. Our goal should be to restore America to a country that makes things again. No. 3, we have got to start teaching our young people moral values again. That starts with putting God and prayer back in our schools. Our kids need structure, and they need to learn right from wrong. I have watched everything that has happened in education over the past few decades from a front-row seat on my sideline as a coach. It is embarrassing. As a person who chooses to spend their career in education, I now have the opportunity to say something as a U.S. Senator. Our young people are our No. 1 hope for this country's future. If we don't recognize that, we are going to lose our country as we know it. As of 2018, the United States is 13th in the world for reading, 18th for science, and we are 36th in the world for math. That is unacceptable. This country was built on hard work. It was built on competition, whether it is business or individual. Education and athletics teach you how to compete, how to have grit, determination, and to work together as a team. Now, you can learn everything you want from books, but if you don't learn to persevere and compete, it is hard to succeed. Some people in this country think that you are owed something simply because you live in the United States of America. This country doesn't owe you a job or a paycheck. This country only owes you one thing, and that is an opportunity, but what is great about this country is that it also gives you the opportunity to fail. That might sound a little funny coming from a football coach who spent his entire career trying to win, but here, if you fail, this country will give you a chance to get back on your feet and try to succeed again and again. You don't get that opportunity in most countries on God's green Earth. That being said, I appreciate the opportunity to serve with Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Burr, and I look forward to getting down to work and returning education to one of our top priorities. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS911 | null | 2,388 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the Senate floor for the first time as a U.S. Senator from the great State of Alabama. I want to share some thoughts on how we can work together as a team to improve the lives of our constituents and to provide more opportunity for the next generation of Americans, but before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank the people of Alabama. For the last 2 years, I have traveled the State, from Mobile to Muscle Shoals, from the Wiregrass to Lake Guntersville, and many places in between. I talked to folks from all walks of life. Mostly, I listened, which is something we can all do better. I listened to people's hopes, and I listened to their concerns. I heard what they thought was going right in our country and State and what they thought was going wrong, and even after being a football coach my entire career, working day and night, running for the Senate was still the hardest thing I have ever done, but I enjoyed every minute. In the end, I asked the people of Alabama to trust me with the responsibility of representing them here in Washington, and they did. It is humbling. It is an opportunity to serve my country that I respect, cherish, and will always honor. My staff and I will work hard every day to live up to that trust. Like the Presiding Officer, my constituents sent me to Washington to represent them and to help make their lives better. I recognize we all have our differences, but we are all on the same team. We have got an offense and a defense, but at the end of the day, we are still on the same team. One of the things we can do together as a team is to create more opportunity for more people. In my view, that starts with education. I have been an educator, a coach, and a mentor to young people for 40 years. I recruited 18- to 19-year-olds from all over the country and all walks of life. I saw how they lived. I was a father figure to hundreds of young men who had one or no parents. I coached young people from all backgrounds--rich, poor, and everybody in between. I mentored young people of all races, religions, and economic backgrounds. As someone who has had a chance to travel across the country and this globe for my career, I have seen how other people live. One thing I have learned is that education is the key to freedom--the key to freedom--the freedom to live the life you want. I have seen firsthand how education can give you a leg up and a way out. It is a way to achieve the American dream. When we empower our young people with a quality education, we give them the gift of an opportunity, the greatest gift our country can give our citizens. And what I found out as a coach is that, when people are given an opportunity to better themselves, they usually take it. I think I can safely say I have been in more public schools than any Senator ever. Too often, I have found that we are failing our young people by not providing the quality education they deserve. It is not about money; it is about people; it is about what we value and what we teach. Improving education in this country should be one of the, if not the top, priorities we have. That is why I am proud to be a new member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. On the HELP Committee, we need to work together as a team to do three things. First, we need to recognize that parents and teachers know how to best educate our young people in their communities because we are all different. The Federal Government does not need to tell parents in Alabama how to teach their kids. We don't need a one-size-fits-all education curriculum. What works in San Francisco will not necessarily work in Scottsboro, AL. Second, we should recognize that education takes many forms. Not every student in America needs to go to a 4-year college or university. To ensure our country remains competitive in the 21st century, we need to promote STEM education to those students who have an interest in math and science, but to remain strong, this country also needs welders, plumbers, nurses, equipment operators, electricians, and craftsmen. These are jobs that have excellent pay and great futures. If the Democrats want to pass a massive infrastructure bill, they need to first ask: Who is going to build it? That is why I will be looking for any opportunity to support career technical programs that prepare a skilled workforce. Our goal should be to restore America to a country that makes things again. No. 3, we have got to start teaching our young people moral values again. That starts with putting God and prayer back in our schools. Our kids need structure, and they need to learn right from wrong. I have watched everything that has happened in education over the past few decades from a front-row seat on my sideline as a coach. It is embarrassing. As a person who chooses to spend their career in education, I now have the opportunity to say something as a U.S. Senator. Our young people are our No. 1 hope for this country's future. If we don't recognize that, we are going to lose our country as we know it. As of 2018, the United States is 13th in the world for reading, 18th for science, and we are 36th in the world for math. That is unacceptable. This country was built on hard work. It was built on competition, whether it is business or individual. Education and athletics teach you how to compete, how to have grit, determination, and to work together as a team. Now, you can learn everything you want from books, but if you don't learn to persevere and compete, it is hard to succeed. Some people in this country think that you are owed something simply because you live in the United States of America. This country doesn't owe you a job or a paycheck. This country only owes you one thing, and that is an opportunity, but what is great about this country is that it also gives you the opportunity to fail. That might sound a little funny coming from a football coach who spent his entire career trying to win, but here, if you fail, this country will give you a chance to get back on your feet and try to succeed again and again. You don't get that opportunity in most countries on God's green Earth. That being said, I appreciate the opportunity to serve with Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Burr, and I look forward to getting down to work and returning education to one of our top priorities. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS911 | null | 2,389 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, after 4 years of Secretary DeVos' efforts to promote greater privatization of our education system and dismantle the civil rights of students, Miguel Cardona is the person we need to restore the promise of America's schools. A former public school teacher who went on to be a leader in the same district where he was once an English learner, Dr. Cardona has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to our public schools and the belief that all children are entitled to a quality education in a safe and nurturing learning environment. He also has a proven track record of effectively responding to the pandemic, helping students overcome the digital divide, and safely reopening schools as the Connecticut Education Commissioner. The pandemic has upended our education system, disrupting learning and exacerbating inequities. From day one as Secretary of the Department of Education, Dr. Cardona will need to be prepared to meet the challenges facing our students and educators, from addressing learning loss and social, emotional, and mental health to reversing declining higher education enrollment rates and a sky-rocketing affordability crisis. Additionally, as deep disparities continue to shortchange low-income students, students of color, and students with disabilities, Dr. Cardona will be a key partner in working toward closing these funding and educational opportunity gaps. I am proud to support Dr. Cardona's nomination, and I look forward to working together to at last make good on our promises to fully fund title I and IDEA, to expand access to quality early childhood education and community schools, and to ensure higher education is accessible for everyone. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS919-2 | null | 2,390 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, after 4 years of Secretary DeVos' efforts to promote greater privatization of our education system and dismantle the civil rights of students, Miguel Cardona is the person we need to restore the promise of America's schools. A former public school teacher who went on to be a leader in the same district where he was once an English learner, Dr. Cardona has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to our public schools and the belief that all children are entitled to a quality education in a safe and nurturing learning environment. He also has a proven track record of effectively responding to the pandemic, helping students overcome the digital divide, and safely reopening schools as the Connecticut Education Commissioner. The pandemic has upended our education system, disrupting learning and exacerbating inequities. From day one as Secretary of the Department of Education, Dr. Cardona will need to be prepared to meet the challenges facing our students and educators, from addressing learning loss and social, emotional, and mental health to reversing declining higher education enrollment rates and a sky-rocketing affordability crisis. Additionally, as deep disparities continue to shortchange low-income students, students of color, and students with disabilities, Dr. Cardona will be a key partner in working toward closing these funding and educational opportunity gaps. I am proud to support Dr. Cardona's nomination, and I look forward to working together to at last make good on our promises to fully fund title I and IDEA, to expand access to quality early childhood education and community schools, and to ensure higher education is accessible for everyone. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-01-pt1-PgS919-2 | null | 2,391 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, the Senate continues its steady progress in improving highly qualified nominees to serve in the executive branch. Last night, the Senate confirmed Dr. Miguel Cardona as the Secretary of Education, fulfilling President Biden's promise to elevate someone with public school experience. Gina Raimondo will soon become the former Governor of Rhode Island as she prepares to take on the top job at the Commerce Department. Pending the Senate's approval, Dr. Cecilia Rouse will soon become the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. This morning, I want to pause for a moment to recognize the historic nature of the nominees whom President Biden has nominated and the Senate has confirmed in the first month of the Nation's administration. So far, the Senate has promoted the first Black Secretary of Defense and the first woman to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. After an unbroken streak of 77 male Secretaries in a row, all the way back to Alexander Hamilton, the Senate confirmed the first woman to serve as Treasury Secretary. By the end of the day, we will have confirmed the first Black woman to lead the Council of Economic Advisers, the first Latino and first immigrant to lead the Department of Homeland Security, the second Black woman to serve as U.N. Ambassador, the third Latino to serve as Education Secretary, and the first openly gay Secretary of any Cabinet Agency. Cabinet Agencies, we all know, have an immense influence over the policy of the United States. It is critical for their leaders to have lived experiences that represent the broad spectrum of Americans those Agencies serve. Not only that, but the nominees I just mentioned are some of the most qualified public servants in America and are already hard at work at delivering results for the American people. The Senate will continue to confirm more nominees as quickly as possible. The process can certainly move more quickly with the cooperation of our Republican colleagues, whose States and constituents benefit equally from having these qualified nominees in place. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS965-8 | null | 2,392 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on voting rights, in our American system, we talk a lot about ``perfecting our Union,'' a reference to the preamble of the Constitution, a document which effectively gave only White male landowners the right to vote in our fledgling democracy. Suffice it to say, there is a lot of perfecting to do. As I think about my Democratic caucus--incidentally, it is probably so that less than half of them could actually vote in the elections of 1789 because I believe in many States you had to be White, male, Protestant, a property owner--not so many of those around here. Over the course of 230 years, we passed scores of laws and amended the Constitution to reflect the flaws in our democracy and expand the franchise to all our citizens, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th amendments--just to name a few. Despite all this progress, there is now, in the 21st century, a concerted effort to roll back voting rights in State legislatures across the country, alarmingly making it harder--harder--for Americans to vote and particularly aimed at Americans of color--African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. And it is becoming a feature of one of America's major political parties. Yesterday, I detailed a number of laws pushed by Republicans in State legislatures to limit the amount of time that Americans have to vote, to frustrate election administration in urban areas and around college campuses, to impose overly burdensome ID requirements, absurd witness and signature requirements for absentee ballots. Maybe the most pernicious of all, Republicans in Georgia have coalesced around a plan to end all early voting on Sundays, a day when Black churches organize voter drives, with no good reason--again, none. The threat to voting rights in America is now very real. It must be opposed in every State house and Governor's mansion in this country. And the threat extends all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Eight years ago, a conservative 5-to-4 majority on the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act by essentially rendering meaningless section 5 of the statute, a provision which prevented the implementation of undue voting restrictions in a State with a history of discrimination. Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the era of widespread discrimination, which led to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, was over, and there was no longer a need for the critical portions of the statute. Well, within 24 hours after the ruling had been handed down, Texas announced it would implement a strict voter ID law, and soon thereafter, Mississippi and Alabama followed with laws that had previously been barred by the Justice Department. Republican leaders in the State of North Carolina passed a suite of voter suppression laws that a Federal judge found targeted African-American voters ``with . . . surgical precision.'' Think about that. This was not a ruling from the Reconstruction Era or Jim Crow. It was only a few years ago. At a time when an African-American man elected by the most diverse coalition in the history of American politics occupied the White House, Republicans in North Carolina passed voting laws so pernicious that even the Roberts Court--among the most conservative we have seen on this issue of voting rights--could not ignore the overwhelming stench of discrimination. That is what it was--a stench rooted in America's sordid history of voter suppression and discrimination against Black voters. Well, today the Supreme Court will hear another case concerning the Voting Rights Act, this time about section 2, a section which Chief Justice Roberts referred to in the Shelby County ruling as a necessary failsafe to police discriminatory voting procedures nationwide As one news outlet reported this morning, ``there is every possibility that the high court could make it more difficult, or practically impossible, to challenge voting restrictions in the future,'' warning that another ruling against the law could render the Voting Rights Act ``a dead letter.'' That is what is at stake in America right now. As State legislatures move to restrict voting rights from one end of the country to the other, the law we rely on to prevent outright discrimination at the ballot box is at risk of being ``a dead letter.'' This is one of the most appalling things I have seen in this country after 4 years of an appalling administration. This is just incredible. It burns my blood and should burn the blood of every fair-minded American--Republican, Democrat, Independent, liberal, conservative. After centuries of expanding the right to vote, of struggling to get that right to vote, these pernicious, self-serving proposed laws cut back on the right to vote. Will the Supreme Court let that happen? It is so against what America is all about. We cannot stand by and do nothing as these rights are diluted or stripped away. Congress must pursue a restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and by all accounts should be working in a bipartisan way to make it easier, safer, and more convenient for all Americans to vote. The judgment of history has never been kind to those who work against the full participation of their fellow citizens in our democratic experiment. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS966 | null | 2,393 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, on another matter, we recently learned that Iran has balked at the prospect of direct nuclear negotiations with the United States and Europe. This sort of resistance and gamesmanship is nothing new. We have seen this before. Iran has long flouted international restrictions on its nuclear program, played hide-and-seek with U.N. inspectors, and failed to disclose the full scope of its nuclear research. This happened before, during, and after the Obama administration's Iran deal. Now, thanks to the firm approach taken by the Republican administration which restored much of the leverage President Obama had thrown away, President Biden inherited a much, much stronger negotiating position. Let me make it clear. Republicans do not oppose nuclear diplomacy. We hope the administration will secure a better, stronger, and more lasting deal than President Obama's, but to do so, President Biden's team must avoid the mistakes of the JCPOA. Here is how you do that: coordinate closely with the partners and allies who are most immediately threatened by Tehran; treat Congress as a partner to be consulted, not a problem to be managed; and, most importantly, don't give up any leverage for free. Of course the mullahs are playing coy. They want concessions before they even come to the table. In December, after President Biden was elected, Iran's Parliament reaffirmed their intent to continue acting out if sanctions were not eased. Well, I hope it is only the Iranians and not the administration's negotiators who need this reminder: Look, the United States holds all the cards. President Biden is the Commander in Chief of a superpower. There are no circumstances--none--in which Iran should get money for nothing. And there is no need to rush into the talks. The administration should take care not to squander our upper hand just to spite the last administration, nor should President Biden's team discount the value of the growing regional unity against Iran that is embodied in the new Abraham Accords. Every day, headlines remind the world of the threat Iran and its proxies pose to peace and security. For example, the Iranian journalist, Ruhollah Zam, was lured back to the region from Europe, kidnapped, and hanged after a sham trial just in December. The Lebanese activist, Lokman Slim, was an outspoken critic of Hezbollah until he was shot dead in his car. The regime has kept escalating its support of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, sending in deadlier, longer range weapons, and inciting terrorist threats. The Houthis have escalated attacks on Yemen's neighbors, including in civilian areas, and launched a military offensive that jeopardizes the peace negotiations being undertaken by U.N. Special Envoy Martin Griffiths. Just last week, an Israeli civilian shipping vessel pulled into port with gaping damage from a missile attack, and Tehran's pet militias in Iraq have fired rocket barrages against our own American diplomatic and military facilities. They are communicating to the Biden administration in the mullahs' preferred language: violence. Like I said over the weekend, President Biden is right to respond to this threat by authorizing strikes against targets belonging to Iranian proxy groups--the right decision--and he is right to recognize the need for new binding and enforceable constraints on Iran's nuclear capabilities, but, ultimately, we need a comprehensive approach to confronting Iran. It must be built on bipartisan foundations to endure for administrations and Congresses yet to come. To get there--to get there, the administration must continue to meet Iranian aggression from a position of strength and consult closely with Congress for the sake of our own security and that of our friends and partners in the Ayatollah's backyard. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS967 | null | 2,394 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Texas Independence Day Mr. President, I didn't know our colleague from New Mexico was going to be the Presiding Officer now, but being our next-door neighbor, maybe he will appreciate a little short speech about Texas Independence Day. One hundred eighty-five years ago, on March 2, 1836, Texas adopted its Declaration of Independence from Mexico. This happened in the context of a struggle that perhaps is best remembered by the Battle of the Alamo, which laid some of the groundwork to Texans'--or as they called themselves back then, Texians--eventual victory. I always remind people that virtually everybody died at the Battle of the Alamo. It was actually the Battle of San Jacinto that won the war. But just 1 week shy of this momentous day, a 26-year-old lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army named William Barrett Travis and his fellow soldiers were outnumbered nearly 10 to 1 by the forces of the Mexican dictator, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Colonel Travis wrote a letter that has arguably become the most famous document in Texas history. Here in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats from Texas, have had the honor of reading that letter every year since 1961, when then-Senator John Tower began that tradition. So, today, I would like to express my gratitude for these Texas patriots, many of whom would go on to serve in the U.S. Congress, including Sam Houston, whose Senate seat I am honored to occupy, and it is my great honor to read the Travis letter here on the Senate floor. The letter was addressed ``To the People of Texas and All Americans [Around] the World.'' Fellow citizens & compatriots--I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man--The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion. Otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls--I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death. Signed: William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Comdt. As I said, in the battle that ensued, all 189 defenders of the Alamo gave their lives, but they did not die in vain. In fact, we Texans might not be around if it weren't for them. We might still be part of Mexico. The Battle of the Alamo bought precious time for the Texas revolutionaries, allowing General Sam Houston to maneuver his army into position for a decisive victory, as I said, in the Battle of San Jacinto. For 9 years, the Republic of Texas thrived as a nation. That is the reason we fly our flag at the same height as the U.S. flag, unlike other States. But then in 1845, we were annexed to the United States as the 28th State. Every single day, I am honored to represent the people of my State here in the U.S. Senate, an opportunity that would not be possible without the sacrifices made by brave men like William Barret Travis 185 years ago. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS971 | null | 2,395 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Coronavirus Mr. President, I come to the floor today because the Senate will likely vote soon on the Biden stimulus bill. I think all of us in this Chamber agree that we want to get relief to the American people. That was our objective when we passed the CARES Act last year, which allocated $2.2 trillion for the relief effort. It was our objective when we passed four other COVID relief bills in 2020--and these brought the total up to $4 trillion. All of these measures were the result of bipartisan cooperation and negotiations--Democrats and Republicans working together. But right now, the President and congressional Democrats are pushing a completely partisan product through a totally partisan process to promote their progressive agenda. They call it the American Rescue Plan, and the pricetag is $1.9 trillion, more than double what we spent after the financial crisis starting in 2008. When combined with the five COVID packages we have already enacted, the total cost to the American taxpayers would be close to $6 trillion, more than the GDP of every country other than China and the United States. And as of the end of January, hundreds of billions of dollars from these bills has yet to be spent. December's relief bill dedicated $284 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program, but only a quarter of those funds had been obligated. That same bill provided $20 billion for Economic Injury Disaster Loans, none of it had been spent by February 1. The same is true of the CARES Act spending for community planning programs, for which hundreds of millions of dollars remain unspent. Over 90 percent of these bills' combined funding for mental health programs was sitting idle as of late January as well. The White House calls this bill ``emergency legislative package to fund vaccinations, provide immediate, direct relief to families bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 crisis, and supporting struggling communities.'' Each of these things is important, and support for them should absolutely be part of any package we pass. But when you look somewhere other than the White House website to find out what is actually in this bill, you see that many parts of it don't belong in a package that is meant to help us recover from our fight against this virus. Let us start with what will make the biggest difference for working families: the direct payments to individual Americans. For months, I have supported sending these checks. I went on the record in December to say that people are hurting and that we should help them with more aid in the form of direct payments. I think these payments are a good idea, but they should be targeted to those who truly need them, not sent to people who haven't been affected in the same way as the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. If this once-in-a-century pandemic hasn't put you out of work at one point or another, you have been lucky. But this plan would give you a check even if you have never lost your job and struggled to pay your bills. That is not right. This administration had time to work with Republicans to make sure those who need help get it. They didn't do that. Instead, people who never lost their job get a check. People who were never furloughed get a check. And financially stable families who earned as much as $200,000 last year--well, they still get a check too. If so many Americans are hurting, as we all know they are, our only focus should be getting this aid into their hands, not using their insecurity as a chance to pass a bunch of wish list items from this progressive agenda. The White House wants Congress to spend billions of dollars on things that no COVID aid bill should be addressing. Many other Senators have expressed similar concerns. We believe that every cent of any COVID relief bill needs to go toward recovery from the effects of COVID on families and on communities. The new administration has a chance to show that they really are interested in ``bipartisanship'' and ``unity''--two words President Biden uses just about every day. They could prove that today by reaching out to Republicans in good faith, but, so far, any effort by the administration to do so has only been to provide an appearance of working together, not to make any actual progress on any kind of bipartisan product. Instead, they are focusing on filling this package with progressive priorities. So let's take a look at some of the items on that list: giving $30 billion to public transit authorities, even though President Biden only asked for $20 billion and several major Agencies have said the December relief bill would get them through at least until summer; spending $50 million on family planning programs that wouldn't have Hyde protections, meaning that our tax dollars would pay for elective abortions; allowing Planned Parenthood to receive the small business funding from the Paycheck Protection Program; dedicating another $50 million to the troubling vague goal of ``combating the climate crisis''; sending $12 billion overseas in aid--this does not belong in a domestic COVID response bill--and spending over $100 million on a subway system near Speaker Pelosi's district in the Bay area. I will leave it up to my Democratic colleagues to explain how expanding a subway in Northern California would help all Americans ``build back better'' in this pandemic. So far, they are silent. This is supposed to be an emergency rescue plan for the Americans who have been hit hardest by COVID, but, instead, the Biden stimulus plan doesn't make any of the tough decisions we need to make, and it uses Americans' hard-earned tax dollars as a blank check. This proposal also pays lipservice to the importance of getting students back into the classroom, while asking this body to vote for things that would do exactly the opposite. Even though almost $70 billion of the funds dedicated to schools in December's relief bill still hasn't been spent, this American Rescue Plan would give them nearly $170 billion more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this money is necessary for a majority of K-8 schools to safely reopen in the President's first 100 days, but their bill would reserve 95 percent of that new money for the years 2022 to 2028. How does that help families today who want their kids to get back to school? They want them back in school now; so how does it help? This bill goes even further than that. It would treat schools that choose to open and schools that remained closed the same way, which does nothing to incentivize them to get their kids back in classrooms. This plan would also give $350 billion to States, cities, and localities. A big chunk of that money will be used to bail out States like New York and California, which have kept people away from their jobs and their children out of schools for months on end. Even worse, this bill tallies States' and localities' level of funding based on raw unemployment numbers, not their unemployment rate. That would punish both red and blue States that have handled this pandemic well. It leaves behind States like mine--like Nebraska--which has the lowest unemployment rate in the country because we have succeeded in balancing safety and reopening where other States have failed. It would also hurt Minnesota, Vermont, and New Hampshire--three blue States that have kept their unemployment numbers low. When you look under the hood, this bill is more about passing that partisan wish list than getting the United States through the worst public health crisis that we have faced in over a century. At best, the name ``American Rescue Plan'' is misleading. At worst, it is deceptive. I stand ready to work with the administration and my Democratic colleagues in Congress to address these issues and to give Americans the help they need in a targeted, reasonable, and productive way. We did that with the CARES Act, and we could do it again if our colleagues on the other side are willing. That is the way the Senate is supposed to work--in a bipartisan way. It is how we reach consensus and deliver the policies that the American people need and that the American people deserve. I know I share the sentiments of many of my colleagues when I say that I am disappointed in how this process has been conducted. Without an effort to compromise and to make major changes in the stimulus package, I will be voting no. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS972 | null | 2,396 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Coronavirus Mr. President, I come to the floor today because the Senate will likely vote soon on the Biden stimulus bill. I think all of us in this Chamber agree that we want to get relief to the American people. That was our objective when we passed the CARES Act last year, which allocated $2.2 trillion for the relief effort. It was our objective when we passed four other COVID relief bills in 2020--and these brought the total up to $4 trillion. All of these measures were the result of bipartisan cooperation and negotiations--Democrats and Republicans working together. But right now, the President and congressional Democrats are pushing a completely partisan product through a totally partisan process to promote their progressive agenda. They call it the American Rescue Plan, and the pricetag is $1.9 trillion, more than double what we spent after the financial crisis starting in 2008. When combined with the five COVID packages we have already enacted, the total cost to the American taxpayers would be close to $6 trillion, more than the GDP of every country other than China and the United States. And as of the end of January, hundreds of billions of dollars from these bills has yet to be spent. December's relief bill dedicated $284 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program, but only a quarter of those funds had been obligated. That same bill provided $20 billion for Economic Injury Disaster Loans, none of it had been spent by February 1. The same is true of the CARES Act spending for community planning programs, for which hundreds of millions of dollars remain unspent. Over 90 percent of these bills' combined funding for mental health programs was sitting idle as of late January as well. The White House calls this bill ``emergency legislative package to fund vaccinations, provide immediate, direct relief to families bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 crisis, and supporting struggling communities.'' Each of these things is important, and support for them should absolutely be part of any package we pass. But when you look somewhere other than the White House website to find out what is actually in this bill, you see that many parts of it don't belong in a package that is meant to help us recover from our fight against this virus. Let us start with what will make the biggest difference for working families: the direct payments to individual Americans. For months, I have supported sending these checks. I went on the record in December to say that people are hurting and that we should help them with more aid in the form of direct payments. I think these payments are a good idea, but they should be targeted to those who truly need them, not sent to people who haven't been affected in the same way as the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs. If this once-in-a-century pandemic hasn't put you out of work at one point or another, you have been lucky. But this plan would give you a check even if you have never lost your job and struggled to pay your bills. That is not right. This administration had time to work with Republicans to make sure those who need help get it. They didn't do that. Instead, people who never lost their job get a check. People who were never furloughed get a check. And financially stable families who earned as much as $200,000 last year--well, they still get a check too. If so many Americans are hurting, as we all know they are, our only focus should be getting this aid into their hands, not using their insecurity as a chance to pass a bunch of wish list items from this progressive agenda. The White House wants Congress to spend billions of dollars on things that no COVID aid bill should be addressing. Many other Senators have expressed similar concerns. We believe that every cent of any COVID relief bill needs to go toward recovery from the effects of COVID on families and on communities. The new administration has a chance to show that they really are interested in ``bipartisanship'' and ``unity''--two words President Biden uses just about every day. They could prove that today by reaching out to Republicans in good faith, but, so far, any effort by the administration to do so has only been to provide an appearance of working together, not to make any actual progress on any kind of bipartisan product. Instead, they are focusing on filling this package with progressive priorities. So let's take a look at some of the items on that list: giving $30 billion to public transit authorities, even though President Biden only asked for $20 billion and several major Agencies have said the December relief bill would get them through at least until summer; spending $50 million on family planning programs that wouldn't have Hyde protections, meaning that our tax dollars would pay for elective abortions; allowing Planned Parenthood to receive the small business funding from the Paycheck Protection Program; dedicating another $50 million to the troubling vague goal of ``combating the climate crisis''; sending $12 billion overseas in aid--this does not belong in a domestic COVID response bill--and spending over $100 million on a subway system near Speaker Pelosi's district in the Bay area. I will leave it up to my Democratic colleagues to explain how expanding a subway in Northern California would help all Americans ``build back better'' in this pandemic. So far, they are silent. This is supposed to be an emergency rescue plan for the Americans who have been hit hardest by COVID, but, instead, the Biden stimulus plan doesn't make any of the tough decisions we need to make, and it uses Americans' hard-earned tax dollars as a blank check. This proposal also pays lipservice to the importance of getting students back into the classroom, while asking this body to vote for things that would do exactly the opposite. Even though almost $70 billion of the funds dedicated to schools in December's relief bill still hasn't been spent, this American Rescue Plan would give them nearly $170 billion more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this money is necessary for a majority of K-8 schools to safely reopen in the President's first 100 days, but their bill would reserve 95 percent of that new money for the years 2022 to 2028. How does that help families today who want their kids to get back to school? They want them back in school now; so how does it help? This bill goes even further than that. It would treat schools that choose to open and schools that remained closed the same way, which does nothing to incentivize them to get their kids back in classrooms. This plan would also give $350 billion to States, cities, and localities. A big chunk of that money will be used to bail out States like New York and California, which have kept people away from their jobs and their children out of schools for months on end. Even worse, this bill tallies States' and localities' level of funding based on raw unemployment numbers, not their unemployment rate. That would punish both red and blue States that have handled this pandemic well. It leaves behind States like mine--like Nebraska--which has the lowest unemployment rate in the country because we have succeeded in balancing safety and reopening where other States have failed. It would also hurt Minnesota, Vermont, and New Hampshire--three blue States that have kept their unemployment numbers low. When you look under the hood, this bill is more about passing that partisan wish list than getting the United States through the worst public health crisis that we have faced in over a century. At best, the name ``American Rescue Plan'' is misleading. At worst, it is deceptive. I stand ready to work with the administration and my Democratic colleagues in Congress to address these issues and to give Americans the help they need in a targeted, reasonable, and productive way. We did that with the CARES Act, and we could do it again if our colleagues on the other side are willing. That is the way the Senate is supposed to work--in a bipartisan way. It is how we reach consensus and deliver the policies that the American people need and that the American people deserve. I know I share the sentiments of many of my colleagues when I say that I am disappointed in how this process has been conducted. Without an effort to compromise and to make major changes in the stimulus package, I will be voting no. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS972 | null | 2,397 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Nomination of Gina Marie Raimondo Mr. President, I rise today to express concern over President Biden's nomination of Governor Gina Raimondo to lead the Department of Commerce. We are a year into a deadly pandemic that originated in Wuhan, China. The Chinese Communist Party censored and disappeared doctors and journalists who were trying to tell the truth about how the coronavirus was spreading, and the Chinese Communist Party lied to the world about the nature of the virus. Over 2\1/2\ million people worldwide have died, including over a half million Americans. The Chinese Communist Party's lies and censorship and propaganda didn't stop with the pandemic. They pervade everything the Chinese Communist Party does. Many of us are increasingly concerned that China is gaining access to American secrets using nontraditional all-of-government--or even all-of-nation--approaches to espionage against the United States and our allies. That includes using companies like Tencent and Huawei, which masquerade as telecom companies when they are, in fact, government espionage operations. This is deeply troubling and dangerous. China is, in my judgment, the greatest long-term geopolitical threat to the United States for the next century. Presidents in both parties have believed for decades that the United States could somehow turn China from a foe to a friend through trade and diplomacy or that allowing China into rules-based institutions would turn China into a rules-based country. Instead, sadly, the opposite has happened. The United States, of course, can't sever all commerce with one of the biggest economies in the planet, but we must recognize China for the threat it poses to our national security. To counter the threat that China poses, we should do four things: No. 1, we should protect ourselves from Chinese espionage and interference. No. 2, we should insulate the supply lines of our critical resources from China, including by bringing them back to the United States. No. 3, we should insulate all commerce from enabling the Chinese Communist Party's human rights abuses, including their systematic pattern of torture, murder, and genocide. And, No. 4, we should vigorously compete to secure our interests. On the first point, one important thing the Department of Commerce does is maintain an Entity List, which is a list of foreign parties and companies that engage in activities contrary to American national security interests. When a foreign company is put on the Entity List, they are barred from acquiring American technology. In 2019, I led an effort to add to the list of companies, and in 2019 and in 2020, the Trump administration added several Chinese technologies companies to the Entity List. When Governor Raimondo came before the Commerce Committee in January, I asked her if she would keep those Chinese technologies companies on the Entity List. She refused to make that commitment. In fact, she wouldn't even commit to keeping Huawei on the Entity List, which is unabashedly an espionage agency of the Chinese Communist Party. In questions for the record, I gave Governor Raimondo a second chance to clearly and explicitly answer these questions, and yet she still refused. Similarly, the Governor provided vague nonanswers or no answers at all in response to questions for the record on her ethics problems and her conflicts of interest as Governor. As my colleagues know, nominees will never be more engaged, more transparent, or more forthcoming than during their confirmation process. That Governor Raimondo has refused to be any one of these speaks volumes to how she would act if confirmed as Secretary. The fact is that there has been a rush to embrace the worst elements of the Chinese Communist Party in the Biden administration, and that includes Governor Raimondo. That is why I placed a hold on her confirmation, and that is why I will be voting not to confirm her to lead the Department of Commerce. Governor Raimondo's nomination is part of a pattern. So far, every action, every nomination that we have seen from the nascent Biden administration, insofar as it concerns China, has lessened the scrutiny, has lessened the sanctions, has lessened the pressure on communist China. We are seeing a steady and systematic embrace of communist China, and that is dangerous. That is dangerous for our nation. It is foolhardy. I recognize that there is a lot of pressure from Big Business and Big Tech to get in bed with China. That is profoundly contrary to American interests. Now, we are just about 6 weeks into the Biden Presidency, and the Biden administration has already been keen on lifting the restrictions on Huawei since the very first week. Where will we be 6 months from now, a year from now? Prohibiting the use of platforms like Huawei and safeguarding American technology from being exploited by Chinese espionage infrastructure are commonsense measures to protect American national security. Before the coronavirus pandemic, the understanding of the threat posed by communist China was more limited. It was more limited in Washington, where both Democrats and Republicans mistakenly believed China was our friend, and it was more limited internationally. For 8 years in the Senate, I had been calling out the threat posed by Communist China--sometimes a lonely position in this town. But as events transpired the last year and the world saw the systematic pattern of lies, deception, and death coming from the Chinese Communist Government, eyes have been open, and the severity of the threat has been underscored. Before this pandemic, our ally, the United Kingdom, was moving forward with plans to allow Huawei to install significant telecommunications infrastructure in the UK. The U.S. Government had vigorously urged the UK not to go down that road, that it would open up the United Kingdom to espionage from the Chinese Government. The United Kingdom is one of the members of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, a network of our closest allies where we share our most sensitive, our most important, our most confidential national security secrets. I had the opportunity to sit down with Nigel Farage on a podcast I host and to talk about Brexit, to talk about Europe, but also to talk about Huawei and the threat from China. As I said to Nigel on the podcast, as much as we love the Brits, as valuable a friend as the UK is to the United States, if the UK went forward with allowing Huawei to install significant telecom infrastructure in its country, we might have to reassess the UK's participation in the Five Eyes security network. As I put it then, ``four eyes are better than six eyes.'' Well, I am grateful to say that following the coronavirus pandemic, the United Kingdom reconsidered its decision. It saw the threat of Communist China and Huawei, and it stepped back from the brink. That was the right thing to do, and it did so in response to considerable pressure from the U.S. Government. I very much hope that this pattern we are seeing of the Biden administration embracing Communist China will not reverse that pressure, will not lighten up on our allies and tacitly encourage them to move forward with Huawei to allow the espionage architecture to be put in place their nations. That would render America more vulnerable. It would render our allies more vulnerable. It would render the world more vulnerable. It would have been a very simple matter for Governor Raimondo to commit to keeping Huawei on the Entity List. It would have been a very simple matter for Governor Raimondo to commit to keeping the Chinese technology companies that I urged be added to the list, keeping them on the list. She refused to do so repeatedly. As I said, this appears to be a part of a pattern of a systematic decision to embrace Communist China. If that is indeed the direction the Biden administration is going, I hope that Members of both parties who have seen the threat posed by Communist China will urge the President, will urge the Cabinet, will urge this administration: Stop the embrace of communist China. Defend the interests of the United States of America. Because she was not willing to make these commitments, I will be voting against the confirmation of Governor Raimondo, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS973-2 | null | 2,398 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Nomination of Gina Marie Raimondo Mr. President, I rise today to express concern over President Biden's nomination of Governor Gina Raimondo to lead the Department of Commerce. We are a year into a deadly pandemic that originated in Wuhan, China. The Chinese Communist Party censored and disappeared doctors and journalists who were trying to tell the truth about how the coronavirus was spreading, and the Chinese Communist Party lied to the world about the nature of the virus. Over 2\1/2\ million people worldwide have died, including over a half million Americans. The Chinese Communist Party's lies and censorship and propaganda didn't stop with the pandemic. They pervade everything the Chinese Communist Party does. Many of us are increasingly concerned that China is gaining access to American secrets using nontraditional all-of-government--or even all-of-nation--approaches to espionage against the United States and our allies. That includes using companies like Tencent and Huawei, which masquerade as telecom companies when they are, in fact, government espionage operations. This is deeply troubling and dangerous. China is, in my judgment, the greatest long-term geopolitical threat to the United States for the next century. Presidents in both parties have believed for decades that the United States could somehow turn China from a foe to a friend through trade and diplomacy or that allowing China into rules-based institutions would turn China into a rules-based country. Instead, sadly, the opposite has happened. The United States, of course, can't sever all commerce with one of the biggest economies in the planet, but we must recognize China for the threat it poses to our national security. To counter the threat that China poses, we should do four things: No. 1, we should protect ourselves from Chinese espionage and interference. No. 2, we should insulate the supply lines of our critical resources from China, including by bringing them back to the United States. No. 3, we should insulate all commerce from enabling the Chinese Communist Party's human rights abuses, including their systematic pattern of torture, murder, and genocide. And, No. 4, we should vigorously compete to secure our interests. On the first point, one important thing the Department of Commerce does is maintain an Entity List, which is a list of foreign parties and companies that engage in activities contrary to American national security interests. When a foreign company is put on the Entity List, they are barred from acquiring American technology. In 2019, I led an effort to add to the list of companies, and in 2019 and in 2020, the Trump administration added several Chinese technologies companies to the Entity List. When Governor Raimondo came before the Commerce Committee in January, I asked her if she would keep those Chinese technologies companies on the Entity List. She refused to make that commitment. In fact, she wouldn't even commit to keeping Huawei on the Entity List, which is unabashedly an espionage agency of the Chinese Communist Party. In questions for the record, I gave Governor Raimondo a second chance to clearly and explicitly answer these questions, and yet she still refused. Similarly, the Governor provided vague nonanswers or no answers at all in response to questions for the record on her ethics problems and her conflicts of interest as Governor. As my colleagues know, nominees will never be more engaged, more transparent, or more forthcoming than during their confirmation process. That Governor Raimondo has refused to be any one of these speaks volumes to how she would act if confirmed as Secretary. The fact is that there has been a rush to embrace the worst elements of the Chinese Communist Party in the Biden administration, and that includes Governor Raimondo. That is why I placed a hold on her confirmation, and that is why I will be voting not to confirm her to lead the Department of Commerce. Governor Raimondo's nomination is part of a pattern. So far, every action, every nomination that we have seen from the nascent Biden administration, insofar as it concerns China, has lessened the scrutiny, has lessened the sanctions, has lessened the pressure on communist China. We are seeing a steady and systematic embrace of communist China, and that is dangerous. That is dangerous for our nation. It is foolhardy. I recognize that there is a lot of pressure from Big Business and Big Tech to get in bed with China. That is profoundly contrary to American interests. Now, we are just about 6 weeks into the Biden Presidency, and the Biden administration has already been keen on lifting the restrictions on Huawei since the very first week. Where will we be 6 months from now, a year from now? Prohibiting the use of platforms like Huawei and safeguarding American technology from being exploited by Chinese espionage infrastructure are commonsense measures to protect American national security. Before the coronavirus pandemic, the understanding of the threat posed by communist China was more limited. It was more limited in Washington, where both Democrats and Republicans mistakenly believed China was our friend, and it was more limited internationally. For 8 years in the Senate, I had been calling out the threat posed by Communist China--sometimes a lonely position in this town. But as events transpired the last year and the world saw the systematic pattern of lies, deception, and death coming from the Chinese Communist Government, eyes have been open, and the severity of the threat has been underscored. Before this pandemic, our ally, the United Kingdom, was moving forward with plans to allow Huawei to install significant telecommunications infrastructure in the UK. The U.S. Government had vigorously urged the UK not to go down that road, that it would open up the United Kingdom to espionage from the Chinese Government. The United Kingdom is one of the members of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, a network of our closest allies where we share our most sensitive, our most important, our most confidential national security secrets. I had the opportunity to sit down with Nigel Farage on a podcast I host and to talk about Brexit, to talk about Europe, but also to talk about Huawei and the threat from China. As I said to Nigel on the podcast, as much as we love the Brits, as valuable a friend as the UK is to the United States, if the UK went forward with allowing Huawei to install significant telecom infrastructure in its country, we might have to reassess the UK's participation in the Five Eyes security network. As I put it then, ``four eyes are better than six eyes.'' Well, I am grateful to say that following the coronavirus pandemic, the United Kingdom reconsidered its decision. It saw the threat of Communist China and Huawei, and it stepped back from the brink. That was the right thing to do, and it did so in response to considerable pressure from the U.S. Government. I very much hope that this pattern we are seeing of the Biden administration embracing Communist China will not reverse that pressure, will not lighten up on our allies and tacitly encourage them to move forward with Huawei to allow the espionage architecture to be put in place their nations. That would render America more vulnerable. It would render our allies more vulnerable. It would render the world more vulnerable. It would have been a very simple matter for Governor Raimondo to commit to keeping Huawei on the Entity List. It would have been a very simple matter for Governor Raimondo to commit to keeping the Chinese technology companies that I urged be added to the list, keeping them on the list. She refused to do so repeatedly. As I said, this appears to be a part of a pattern of a systematic decision to embrace Communist China. If that is indeed the direction the Biden administration is going, I hope that Members of both parties who have seen the threat posed by Communist China will urge the President, will urge the Cabinet, will urge this administration: Stop the embrace of communist China. Defend the interests of the United States of America. Because she was not willing to make these commitments, I will be voting against the confirmation of Governor Raimondo, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-02-pt1-PgS973-2 | null | 2,399 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.